Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9083 total)
102 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, vimesey, xongsmith (7 members, 95 visitors)
Newest Member: evolujtion_noob
Post Volume: Total: 897,236 Year: 8,348/6,534 Month: 1,417/1,124 Week: 186/430 Day: 62/60 Hour: 4/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 2056 of 2069 (892915)
03-18-2022 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2055 by Percy
03-18-2022 11:41 AM


Re: Why are there still Creationists?
And don't forget how the European colonization of the Americas led to the disappearance of all humans in Europe the moment the ships left port.

 
Ed Babinski just linked to this Discover Magazine article from a month ago, If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Still Exist? , on FaceBook. The article starts:

quote:
In 2017, actor-comedian Tim Allen famously tweeted a question that revealed just how little he understands about evolution. It seems he’s not alone. His tweet got almost 50,000 “likes” and 13,000 retweets. It’s safe to assume a lot of people reacting to Allen's post also wanted to know the answer to the question that he posed as a statement: “If we evolved from apes why are there still apes.”

The short answer is that "we didn't evolve from any of the any animals that are alive today,” says Zach Cofran, an anthropologist at Vassar College. That is to say, humans didn’t evolve from the gorillas we see at the zoo or the chimpanzees we snap pictures of on a safari. “It's a common misconception that apes are a step away from becoming human or something like a step along the way,” says Cofran. But, he adds, that’s not the case.


So add not only Tim Allen to that possibly-most-idiotic creationist claim, but also the 50,000 individuals who “liked” and 13,000 who retweeted it (I would assume that all the 13,000 twits/re-twits had also "liked", so we're sure of at least 50,000 fellow cretins).

Even more evidence of the hypocritical lies from the creationists who proclaim that no creationist would ever make such a stupid claim. Kind of like racists who loudly complain that they're not racist.

 
I have always interpreted that claim as being based on a gross misinterpretation of Spencer's "survival of the fittest" (not coined by Darwin, though he did include it in later editions).

That phrase leads to a simplistic scenario in which one species out-competes another species for the same resources such that the less fit species dies out. More specifically, the scenario is one in which the newly evolved descendant species out-competes and replaces its parent species. In reality:

  • Competing species need not be related, so it would rarely be a case of a daughter species being in competition with its parent species.

  • If a daughter species is evolving from its parent and they still occupy the same ecological niche, then it's the parent species that would be evolving; IOW, they would not be two different species competing with each other, but rather a single species that's adapting to its environment.

  • Commonly, a daughter species can arise when a subpopulation moves into a new environment (either geologically or by moving into a different niche) in which case daughter and parent would not be in competition with each other.

  • "Survival of the fittest" is not an absolute nor is reality that extreme. It's more a case of "survival of the good-enough" which can ramp up to "survival of the barely-better" when species compete. Even though one species might do better than the other, that does not necessitate the extinction of the "loser".

  • Uh, you know that we are still apes. Just as we and our fellow apes are still monkeys, we/apes/monkeys are still primates, we primates are still mammals, etc etc etc.

And more reasons why it's so stupid -- I have errands to run so I cannot spend more time on this.

This whole "issue" is just further evidence that creationists have no clue what they are talking about. And that they really need to learn all that they can about evolution, especially if they want to oppose evolution. If they knew more about evolution then they could address evolution's actual problems and would know better than to use such utterly stupid claims as "why are there still apes?".

Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2055 by Percy, posted 03-18-2022 11:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2057 of 2069 (893992)
04-27-2022 6:51 PM


Example of the Damage Done by Being Raised on YEC
New streamed interview recorded and posted on YouTube by Dapper Dinosaur: Leaving Young Earth Creationism with Talen Lee (in case utube tag below doesn't work):

Talen Lee is from eastern Australia. He was given a "fundamentalist" Christian upbringing and early education -- scare quotes on "fundamentalist" since there are so many different fundamentalist sects, most of whom denounce all other such sects as unChristian heretics.

His first ten years of school was in a church school that used an American church educational series called "ACE" which, from what I gather, was a series of workbooks that had the kids sitting by themselves all day working through the lessons. From there he went to a public high school for his last two years. The result of his prior ten years of "schooling" was that he ended up not know anything. First day in science class the teacher drew something on the board and everybody would know, a water molecule, and he had absolutely no idea what that was supposed to be. He ended up having to spend most of his time just trying to catch up, which he was never able to do. His high school would periodically calculate every student's academic standing so that they would know what percentile they were in and he would always be near the bottom.

But in the meantime, his YEC training was still kicking in during science class. As soon as the lesson would begin he would challenge the material exactly as we see in creationist videos where a Christian student completely owns the teacher with "hard questions". What he has since realized is that he was just keeping the others and (far worse) himself from learning and that everybody in that class hated him for it.

When he did finally complete high school, he was almost literally unemployable because he didn't know anything and he couldn't do anything. Since that was around 2000 and the Rupture was going to hit any day now, he didn't see any need to prepare himself for employability. He didn't even know how to vote, because, you know, the Rapture. Over the next decade, he slowly came to his senses and deconverted. At the age of 30, he applied to attend university and they had to be honest with him by telling him that they couldn't even identify his first ten years of "education" as even being a school. So he first had to take courses on how to be a student.

That is as far as I've gotten so far (1:07:00). BTW, the first few minutes of the video is the streaming image of "The interview will begin shortly", so be patient or skip ahead.

 
ABE:
Starting around 1:10:50 he gets into how people remain sucked into their bubble, though the term used is "Christian replacement media". He describes how interlocking factors in their environment keeps them isolated and controlled in a way that makes them alienated from the world around them. This creates a very limited frame of reference that is not only very difficult but also terrifying to break out of.
In many cases of those who do try to step out and learn something the other side, they end up quickly retreating and reradicalizing in a manner he describes as "brutal".

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 2058 of 2069 (894099)
04-30-2022 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2015 by dwise1
11-22-2021 2:23 AM


Story of the Only Real Two Model Class Known
DWise1 writes:

eWolf writes:

Should religion be taught with evolution in schools?


...

Somewhere around 1980, two professors at San Diego State University, Roger Awbrey and Bill Thwaites, started a "Two Model" class. At that time, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), then the cutting edge state-of-the-art YEC organization (they had literally created "creation science" and Flood Geology and were the foremost publishers of creationist "educational" materials) was still headquartered in nearby El Cajon and then in Santee, plus they had on their staff the leading professional creationists. Basically, whenever you were talking about creationism and creationist claims, you were talking about what the ICR said. Literally, guest creationists gave half the lectures and Awbrey & Thwaites gave the other half. Now, at many creationist debates it's traditional to have the audience vote on who won -- of course, since the audience would be packed with church groups along with other factors (eg, the creationist being far more experienced in these events and more polished through practice) the creationist would usually win the vote. Similarly, at the end of the semester the students would also vote for which side made the better case. Typically, science would win since now the students could actually examine and test the creationist claims. The campus Christian clubs kept protesting this course and I believe I was told also hold demonstrations against it. Finally, Admin grew tired of the ruckus and cancelled the course.

So when they finally get a an actual two-model course in a school, the creationists oppose it. Now of course, in their presentations Awbrey & Thwaites would present the actual science that the creationists were misrepresenting, which means that they were responding to the creationists' claims -- I assume that the creationist was allowed to be present for those classes. In their presentations Awbrey & Thwaites could present what the creationists' own scientific sources (which the creationists had misquoted or misrepresented; AKA "quote-mined") actually said, a tactic that had been used very effectively against ICR VP Duane Gish in debate (overhead projection with two columns, on the left is what Gish said a source said and on the right is what it actually said). Also in one class Gish had repeated their false claim about the bombadier beetle (AKA "Bomby") that the two chemicals in its chemical defense would spontaneously explode when mixed, so Awbrey & Thwaites took beakers containing those two chemicals and mixed them together right in front of Gish in class (as well as in glass!) and no explosion. Gish mumbled something about somebody else having screwed up and misinformed him, but for several years afterwards Gish continued to use that same claim which he had admited in public to be false.

I just found an article by Bill Thwaites (and dedicated to the late Frank Awbrey) which tells the story of their class, the only real two-model class I know of:

Toe to Toe with Young-Earth Creationists (February 26, 2016)

quote:
The “Two Model” Course at San Diego State

Both Frank and I had spent countless hours in the library getting ready for the debate. Our studies had given us an expertise that virtually no one in the secular world of science possessed. It would have been a waste to have spent all that time and effort for a one night stand.

Creationists were always writing about “Two Model” courses where both the creation and evolution “models would be discussed and the students could make up their own minds.” Obviously they had assumed that such a course would result in overwhelming approval for the creation model. After all, there was quite a bit of material written in favor of creationism. But no biology text says much that would directly refute creationist claims. Thus a “two model” course taught with existing materials would have resulted in a near total defeat for evolution.

But we knew what the creationists were saying. And we knew just what was wrong with it. We could offer a real two model course in which creationism would be exposed for the sham that it is. We wanted to offer a creation versus evolution course where each side would be presented by its own well prepared proponents.


In the article, Thwaites recounts how he originally got involved with creationism, how he and Awbrey prepared for a debate with Drs. H. Morris (AKA "Hank") and Duane Gish (AKA "Duane") in which Hank and Duane refused to discuss many parts of their own position because "that's not part of the topic of the debate" (IOW, they weaseled out). Having done all that preparation, they decided to put it to good use and created their own two-model class as stated above. When the university finally approved the class:

quote:
The course was given the title of: Analysis of Evolutionary Criticism. This rather cumbersome title was abbreviated in the course catalog as “Anal. Evol. Crit.”

Hmm.

The second half of the article consists of anecdotes from the class regarding the various creationists who provided the creationist lectures plus other creationists they encountered.

Before that, Thwaites tells of they got lists of postulates to base their class on:

quote:
Our most pointed criticism came not from our SDSU colleagues, but from a Professor Ralph Lewis (a retired professor at Michigan State). He wrote passionately about our giving the creationists credit for being scientists and for giving them a “platform” to peddle their form of insanity (or words to that effect). His criticism was not unique, but Lewis was unusual in that he became our ally after we explained in a four or five page reply the rationale for our version of a “two-model” course.

Lewis, it turned out, had meticulously organized “Origin of Species” into formal sets of postulates under the headings of “Descent with Modification” and “Modification by Natural Selection.” These are listed here as follows:


Darwinian Postulates

A. Descent with modification

  1. All life from one or a few ancestors.
  2. Later forms are the modified descendants of earlier forms.
  3. Change is gradual.
  4. Small changes accumulate to make large changes.
  5. More similar forms had a more recent common ancestor.
  6. New forms arise in only one geographic locality.
  7. Extinction is permanent

B. Modification by “natural selection” (genetically-determined differential reproduction) and “genetic drift” (random differential reproduction).

  1. Life forms have the potential to expand their numbers exponentially.
  2. Usually life forms do not expand their numbers exponentially.
  3. Populations are stabilized by mortality, and infertility.
  4. Mortality and infertility are to some extent determined by hereditary factors (i.e. by genetics).
  5. Therefore, individuals with genes for higher viability and lower infertility (i.e. higher fitness) will pass on these genes to the next generation. (This is natural selection).
  6. Reproductive fitness is determined in complex ways when organisms interact. (Altruism -- the "Golden Rule" -- can sometimes increase reproductive fitness. So can the formation of symbiotic relationships. And group selection may also take place.)
  7. Differential reproduction also can occur because of reasons that are not due to genetic differences (genetic drift).

Lewis’ version of Darwinian postulates became the theme of our creation vs. evolution course. Both of us later used the postulates heavily in General Biology classes.

Lewis’s postulates provided an especially sharp contrast with creationism. Nowhere were creationist postulates listed. In short there was no creation model. Well, there was a creation model, but no one had ever formalized the model into a set of postulates. Frank decided to do for Hank and Duane what Lewis had done for Chuck (Darwin). Frank published the creation model in a 1980 issue of “Creation/Evolution” the forerunner of “NCSE Reports” under the title, “Yes Virginia, There is a Creation Model.” [NOTE from DWise1: this is my page on that article which lists "THE TWO CREATION MODELS OF WENDELL R. BIRD"] Each “postulate” in the creation model was referenced to a specific statement in “Scientific Creationism” by Hank, The Genesis Flood also by Hank, or “Evolution: The Fossils Say `No’” by Duane.

With postulates for both “models” we would be able compare observations with predictions based on each of the two “models.” We spent a great deal of time in our creation vs. evolution classes doing just that.


The Creation Model

According to Hank and Duane

I. The creation.

  1. Supernatural creator.
  2. Everything from nothing relatively recently.
  3. Earth was perfectly designed for life.
  4. Vapor barrier protected earth.
    1. Climate was uniformly warm.
    2. Cosmic radiation kept out.
    3. No wind or rain.
    4. Irrigated by water from the ground.
  5. All kinds created separately.
    1. Each kind unique and fixed.
    2. Each kind highly variable genetically.
  6. Humans created uniquely to exercise dominion over all creation.
  7. No decay.

II. The fall.

  1. Second law of thermodynamics invoked.
    1. Perfect order began to degenerate.
    2. Death, decay and disorder began.
  2. People began to populate earth. All are descended from the original couple.
  3. Vapor barrier enabled great longevity.

III. The flood.

  1. Simultaneous worldwide cataclysm.
  2. All land covered within 40 days.
  3. Flood water from two sources.
    1. Vapor barrier.
    2. Underground reservoirs.
  4. Flood began 1656 years after creation.
  5. Flood formed and deposited the geologic column.
  6. Flood split the land mass into present continents.
  7. Only flood survivors were aboard one boat.
    1. Eight humans.
    2. One pair of most kinds but seven of some.
    3. Aboard boat for 371 days.

IV. Post flood period.

  1. Leftover flood energy caused ice age.
  2. Flood survivors repopulated earth.
  3. All living species are descended from the flood survivors.
    1. Modified by horizontal change to fit the earth.
    2. Modification used the original created genetic variation.
  4. Vapor barrier gone so longevity decreased.
  5. All species are degenerating. Disorder must increase.
  6. Present geological processes differ from those of the flood.

 
When Frank published the creation model in Creation/Evolution we encountered some interesting reactions from the ICR people. We had expected them to regard our version of the creation model as a form of mockery. We thought they would be pretty upset with us. Instead they were almost thankful. They had never seen nor apparently ever thought about seeing their model laid out in such a succinct format. Some, at least Ken Cummings of the ICR, seemed relieved to find that they had not been referring to some vague abstraction but a real flesh and bones model. He asked if ICR would be allowed to use the model in the form that Frank had outlined it.

Others such as Gary Parker of ICR were a bit less enthusiastic. Parker claimed that we had commingled the “Biblical” and “Scientific” creation models. To this we asked him how it would be logically possible to have two dissimilar models that each explained the same set of observations. “Shouldn’t it be possible,” we asked, “to decide which of the two models fit the observations better?” Gary didn’t see the problem with having two equally valid yet dissimilar creation models.


There's lots more in that article, so do please read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2015 by dwise1, posted 11-22-2021 2:23 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2059 of 2069 (894686)
05-26-2022 4:58 PM


*** Bump for eWolf ***
Message 2042
DWise1 writes:
I have not forgotten you. I ended in the hospital and will be back with you as soon as possible. Merry Belated Christmas!
Of course the first conclusion we all jumped to as to what you were in the hospital for ... but that's neither here nor there nor even anywhere near the topic. The main thing is that you were able to get through it and out of the hospital.
I understand you to be of retirement age as I am. My brother-in-law is a decade older than I am. He got rather sick for about a week towards the end of December and is only now recovering from it. I shared with him my own experience that the main problem with getting old is that if we get sick or injured it takes so long to heal, if ever. So work on getting well.
 
Along those lines, I would suggest that you do not waste your time or energy continuing your efforts to discredit yourself and your own religion with mindless sermonizing. We've all heard that stuff before and, indeed, some of us could write far better sales pitches for that pig-in-a-poke (AKA "bill of goods"). Give that a rest since it would be a complete waste of your energy which is currently in short supply.
Instead, concentrate on discussing the topic. You have left so many questions unanswered that you still need to address -- indeed, your switch to blatant preaching could only be interpreted as a failed attempt to avoid those questions or, as I pondered in my Message 2033, feeding your own persecution fantasy by deliberately provoking negative reactions in order to return to your church to complain how much we "hate God" (whereas the truth is that we just hate it when you [pl] pull that stupid crap). Please just turn your attention to that discussion.
My most primary question for you, which I have had to repeat and which you have never even tried to answer, was last repeated in my Message 2032:
DWise1 writes:
And you still have not answer the most basic questions your implied offer to; from my Message 2017:
DWise1 writes:
EWolf writes:
... unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions.
Yes, you did still never answer my question. Though I'm sure that it's entirely beyond your ability to answer, since you don't know the answer yourself:
DWise1 writes:
Dunnage writes:
Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset.
Just what the hell are you talking about? What "evolutionary mindset"? No such thing exists any more than there's an "electronics mindset" or a "muffin method mindset."
All you're doing is repeating a fake bogeyman that was created to scare you. If you truly believe that there is such a thing, then you must present it and your evidence for it, and then be ready to discuss it.
You keep blathering about this "evolution mindset", but you never say what it is supposed to be. Do you even know yourself? I doubt that very much. You are obviously just vomiting the BS lies that creationists keep feeding you, and then you return to eat your own vomit as a dog does.
Which reminds me, you really should try to get around to reading the Bible.
So then, ¡yet again!, just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about? What is it based on?
The rest of Message 2017 brings up several other questions raised by your bald assertions, a few of which I shall list here:
  1. There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.
    All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.
  2. What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.
    Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?
  3. That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.
  4. What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.
  5. I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?
  6. Why do you advocate that the government should be compelled to impose indoctrination in some arbitrarily chosen religion on school children in direct violation of their parents' right to choose the religious tradition to raise their children in?
    If you wish to falsely claim that you have done no such thing, then support your false claim! Refer to my Message 2015 again for the points about education that you would need to address.
  7. Bonus Question: Since all theology is created by Man, if error is found in one's theology, then what does that mean about God? And what should one do about that error which has been found?
These are but a few questions that need to be addressed.
They are very reasonable basic questions which promote discussion (whereas bald assertions only serve to shut down discussin). They are also basic questions that I have never ever seen a creationist attempt to answer in the four decades I have been studying "creation science." Indeed, creationists instead do everything they can to avoid those questions.
My expectations of you are extremely low. Please surprise me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2060 by dwise1, posted 09-16-2022 8:16 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2060 of 2069 (897961)
09-16-2022 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2059 by dwise1
05-26-2022 4:58 PM


Re: *** Bump for eWolf ***
Message 2042
DWise1 writes:
I have not forgotten you. I ended in the hospital and will be back with you as soon as possible. Merry Belated Christmas!
Of course the first conclusion we all jumped to as to what you were in the hospital for ... but that's neither here nor there nor even anywhere near the topic. The main thing is that you were able to get through it and out of the hospital.

I understand you to be of retirement age as I am. My brother-in-law is a decade older than I am. He got rather sick for about a week towards the end of December and is only now recovering from it. I shared with him my own experience that the main problem with getting old is that if we get sick or injured it takes so long to heal, if ever. So work on getting well.

 
Along those lines, I would suggest that you do not waste your time or energy continuing your efforts to discredit yourself and your own religion with mindless sermonizing. We've all heard that stuff before and, indeed, some of us could write far better sales pitches for that pig-in-a-poke (AKA "bill of goods"). Give that a rest since it would be a complete waste of your energy which is currently in short supply.

Instead, concentrate on discussing the topic. You have left so many questions unanswered that you still need to address -- indeed, your switch to blatant preaching could only be interpreted as a failed attempt to avoid those questions or, as I pondered in my Message 2033, feeding your own persecution fantasy by deliberately provoking negative reactions in order to return to your church to complain how much we "hate God" (whereas the truth is that we just hate it when you [pl] pull that stupid crap). Please just turn your attention to that discussion.

My most primary question for you, which I have had to repeat and which you have never even tried to answer, was last repeated in my Message 2032:
DWise1 writes:
And you still have not answer the most basic questions your implied offer to; from my Message 2017:
DWise1 writes:
EWolf writes:
... unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions.
Yes, you did still never answer my question. Though I'm sure that it's entirely beyond your ability to answer, since you don't know the answer yourself:
DWise1 writes:
Dunnage writes:
Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset.

Just what the hell are you talking about? What "evolutionary mindset"? No such thing exists any more than there's an "electronics mindset" or a "muffin method mindset."

All you're doing is repeating a fake bogeyman that was created to scare you. If you truly believe that there is such a thing, then you must present it and your evidence for it, and then be ready to discuss it.

You keep blathering about this "evolution mindset", but you never say what it is supposed to be. Do you even know yourself? I doubt that very much. You are obviously just vomiting the BS lies that creationists keep feeding you, and then you return to eat your own vomit as a dog does.

Which reminds me, you really should try to get around to reading the Bible.

So then, ¡yet again!, just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about? What is it based on?

The rest of Message 2017 brings up several other questions raised by your bald assertions, a few of which I shall list here:
  1. There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.

    All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.
  2. What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.

    Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?
  3. That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.
  4. What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.
  5. I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?
  6. Why do you advocate that the government should be compelled to impose indoctrination in some arbitrarily chosen religion on school children in direct violation of their parents' right to choose the religious tradition to raise their children in?

    If you wish to falsely claim that you have done no such thing, then support your false claim! Refer to my Message 2015 again for the points about education that you would need to address.
  7. Bonus Question: Since all theology is created by Man, if error is found in one's theology, then what does that mean about God? And what should one do about that error which has been found?

These are but a few questions that need to be addressed.

They are very reasonable basic questions which promote discussion (whereas bald assertions only serve to shut down discussin). They are also basic questions that I have never ever seen a creationist attempt to answer in the four decades I have been studying "creation science." Indeed, creationists instead do everything they can to avoid those questions.

My expectations of you are extremely low. Please surprise me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2059 by dwise1, posted 05-26-2022 4:58 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
EWolf
Member
Posts: 17
From: Lehigh Acres, Fl
Joined: 11-10-2021


Message 2061 of 2069 (898440)
09-23-2022 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


Hello Extent,
extent writes:
How can we teach both evolution and religion in school when they seemingly conflict so much
with one another? I found the video below on Derren Browns website today, and it pretty much
shows the incorrect way to go about it, ie showing only only side of the spectrum. Should there
be an age limit for the listener to logically and intelligently be given the 'facts' on both sides,
before they choose in what to believe? You can argue that 'getting them early' is one of the
biggest ways all religions are able to gain followers.. but the video below is a very sad thing
indeed! I believe religion should not be taught until a much older age than what is shown
above, although im sure many may disagree. Surely this should not be even legal...
Only one of the diametrically opposed Creation and evolutionary doctrines may be taught as fact. Although Biblical Creation truth is normally taught in church, isn’t it the responsibility of our educational institutions to support it? Truth supports truth.
Where there is war there are battles and the battles for the truth of our beginning are intense! The fight is over which is to be considered as fact. The effort to teach evolutionary doctrine to the coming generation as fact directly opposes not only the church that informs of the Biblical word of God by which we all live, but also the Declaration of Independence (DOI) that reinforces what the Bible teaches. It says,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (emphasis added)".
This rock solid foundation is the most potent weapon that justified our nation’s separation from the injustice of the then most powerful nation in the world and for maintaining justice. Should we as a nation allow this vital truth (or should I say “fact”) and thus our liberty to be snatched from us and the coming generation? We fight against this unjust effort with all of our might!
Promotion of evolutionary doctrine as fact to the coming generation parallels the brutal efforts to eliminate everything that represents God from American culture. The man in the movie clip is among the many engaged in the heroic effort to protect our precious children from this freedom-destroying brutality. Was he involved in cruel propaganda? Matter appears as anti-matter in the eyes of anti-matter and vice versa. Evolution promoters accuse supporters of Creation truth of what they are guilty of themselves. Evolutionary doctrine is the “Genesis account” for atheism. Joseph Stalin predicted that our nation would become atheistic within one generation. Teaching children at the earliest possible age is also the tactic of freedom’s enemies.
What have we repeatedly seen through the years of nations with rulers that ignored the reality of God? We often hear demands of proof that God is real. But we find it all around us if we care to notice. For example, if we were not created, then why are we commanded to remember a thing called the Sabbath? Who commanded us? What does the seventh day remind us of? Why should it be kept holy other than the fact that we all are under a holy God that commands us? What has the sabbath to do with evolution if evolution is true? The Sabbath is not the 1.656 trillionth day!
Take care,
ELD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2062 by nwr, posted 09-23-2022 10:46 PM EWolf has not replied
 Message 2063 by Theodoric, posted 09-23-2022 11:16 PM EWolf has not replied
 Message 2064 by dwise1, posted 09-24-2022 6:30 AM EWolf has not replied
 Message 2066 by dwise1, posted 09-25-2022 2:04 AM EWolf has not replied
 Message 2067 by Percy, posted 09-25-2022 9:29 AM EWolf has not replied
 Message 2068 by dwise1, posted 09-25-2022 7:18 PM EWolf has not replied
 Message 2069 by Taq, posted 09-26-2022 11:20 AM EWolf has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6108
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 2062 of 2069 (898442)
09-23-2022 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


Only one of the diametrically opposed Creation and evolutionary doctrines may be taught as fact. Although Biblical Creation truth is normally taught in church, isn’t it the responsibility of our educational institutions to support it? Truth supports truth.
Biblical Creation is mythology. Mythology is not truth.
Promotion of evolutionary doctrine as fact to the coming generation parallels the brutal efforts to eliminate everything that represents God from American culture.
That's nonsense.
Evolution is well supported science. Yes, you can argue about whether it is true, because is based on evidence and pragmatics rather than proof. However, there is no basis whatsoever for saying that evolution is doctrine.
The only people who are making "brutal efforts to eliminate everything that represents God from American culture" are the MAGA Trumpians, who mostly claim to be Christian. They are making their version of Christianity so brutally evil that many others are leaving it.
Evolution is not opposed to God. There are evolutionary scientists who are Christians.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7564
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 2063 of 2069 (898444)
09-23-2022 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


There is no god. If there were you would present evidence.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 2064 of 2069 (898447)
09-24-2022 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


Jessica H. Christ! Don't you understand anything?
So much of your BS to respond to. So it will take multiple replies.
Only one of the diametrically opposed Creation and evolutionary doctrines may be taught as fact. Although Biblical Creation truth is normally taught in church, isn’t it the responsibility of our educational institutions to support it? Truth supports truth.
  1. Creation and evolution are not opposed to each other, especially not "diametrically." Evolution is the net cumulative results of life quite naturally doing what life quite naturally does. Any actual believer in Creation (as opposed to the fake creationists such as you obviously are) would understand and believe that the world is as we find it because that is how the Creator had Created it. On the contrary, you fake creationists teach and insist on a false theology which proclaims that if the world is indeed as we find it, then that disproves God. Complete and utter insanity!
    If you actually and sincerely believe that Creation and evolution are "diametrically opposed", then present and defend your case for that belief! We have repeated requested/demanded that you do so, yet you persistently refuse to respond. What are you afraid of?
    Part of that presentation, defense, and discussion would be for you to finally tell us what the hell you mean by "evolutionary doctrine." My four-decade study of "creation science" and more than three decades of encounters with creationists has demonstrated conclusively that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They don't know what evolution is, but rather they constantly attack some kind of strawman idiocy that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, and which they all in their immense dishonesty refuse to ever describe so that we can finally figure out what the f**k they are talking about!.
    Just as you dishonestly refuse. Please break that vicious cycle of creationist lies and deception. Truth (which is personified by Jesus) cannot be served by lies and deception. There is only one Christian deity that I can think of who is served by lies and deception.
  2. The responsibility of our educational institutions is to educate. Part of your problem is that you don't understand what education is. You think that it is indoctrination because that is what your churches do:
    1. Indoctrination is telling the subjects what they are required to believe and then compelling them to believe it. No understanding of the subject matter is required, just a statement of faith that you believe it.
    2. Education is learning what things are without compelling them to believe in those things. The goal of education is understanding.
      Examples (that even you should be able to understand:
      • In school, we were taught Greek and Roman mythology. We learned the stories of those gods. Do you insist that those are attempts to turn the students into pagans? Or is the purpose for them to know about ancient cultures so that they can understand the stories, poems, and artworks that can only be understood if you know the story behind them?
        BTW, that is also a justification for teaching about Judaism and Christianity and Bible stories. So that they can understand references to those stories in literature and art. Not to compel them to believe in those stories -- for that they would need to go to a religious authority -- but so that they could know about such things.
      • Learning in geography and world history classes about all other religions. Again, not in order to convert them to those religions (that is the purpose of your indoctrination), but rather so that they can learn what those religions are and what they teach, along with their histories and social structures. That is especially important for understanding how to work with other cultures:
        Case in point:
        Senior Chief Petty Officer (SCPO), ret., Malcolm Nance, currently serving in combat at the age of 61 in the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine (I am also a CPO, ret, and would freely give my right anchor to have served in the same CPO Mess as him), was a Cryptology tech who got involved in intelligence work leading to work in national security, counterterrorism intelligence, Islamic extremism, and SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape, training for downed pilots and similar personnel to evade and survive capture -- "Return with Honor"). He specialized in Islamic and Russian threats, so he is fluent in both Arabic and Russian (OK, being a polyglot myself, I know that there are several levels of fluency; being able to function in a language and discuss complicated subjects in that language is one thing, but being able to pass as a native takes a lot more work -- at a local German cinema when I was in college, other Germans hearing me assumed that I must be Swiss).
        Operating in the field in Iraq, being black he was able to go places and do things that the real linguistical experts, tall blond Mormons, could not go nor do. Send one of those Mormons or a sufficiently trained Caucasian agent in for human intel and they'd get nothing. But he could go to a local imam, get to know him, pray together (yes, Islamic), and gain his trust enough to gather the needed intel.
        Someone like you, no matter how fluent in Arabic, could have ever accomplished that with your Christian utter arrogance and ignorance of your subjects' culture and religion. That knowledge is gained from education, not from your stupid indoctrination.
        Further notes:
        • My very first encounter with Malcolm Nance was on the Dean Obeidallah Show where he was talking about the organization of al-Qaeda. Military veterans (35 years of service) have a nose for bullshit, which explains an earlier YouTube series of "stolen valor" videos, videos exposing idiots trying to use the uniform to pose as veterans -- it doesn't take a Marine to spot those pukes. I listened to Malcolm Nance on the radio and I could tell that this guy really knew his shit! -- he dead-on knew what he was talking about on every point (not like the GQP pukes appearing on FOX News blathering nothing but nonsense and dezinformatsiya).
        • His descriptions of counterintelligence matched my own approx. 40 years of counterintelligence training (albeit mostly as annual general military training (GMT) designed to make us aware of the threats and their nature, plus many case studies like the Walkers ("The John Walker Spy Ring and The U.S. Navy’s Biggest Betrayal"), recruited by the father, John Walker).
          Everything that Trump did throughout his administration kept sounding alert klaxons for everybody with any kind of counterintelligence training. But he controlled the government so nobody could do anything.
          Wow, Trump has a lot of feathers in his cap now, doesn't he? Nixon was the crookedest President, but Trump took that title from him. "Dubya" Bush was the dumbest until Trump (Rick Perry followed Dubya as Texas Governor, so Texans would refer to Dubya as "the smart one"). Harding's administration was the most corrupt in history, until Trump's. Trump has rehabilitated so many presidents' tainted reputations. And now his extremely gross and flagrant stealing and mishandling of America's secrets far exceeds the treasonous actions of the Walker family spy ring ... and of Benedict Arnold, historically the worst American traitor ever. Wow!
        • Here's a good YouTube video of his interview with "Angry Americans" ("If you're not angry, then you're not paying attention."). Two experienced military veterans sitting there trading war stories and making observations from their military perspectives, but with Nance contributing the most (from 16 Sep 2019):
        • Have you ever seen the George Clooney movie, Three Kings (1999)? Ice Cube plays Staff Sergeant Chief Elgin. Chief???? What the f*** is that s*** about? US Army has no f***ing chiefs except for Chief Warrant Officers, which this Staff Sergeant isn't! It's nothing but f***ing stolen valor all over again! And we veterans will not stand for it! Do not ever disrespect the uniform! Eg, those idiotic Rambo-style posters of Trump, the ultimate poser! BTW, I heard a story by a SEAL and his brother, a Ranger, seeing a poster on a shop of "Rambo-Trump" disrespecting both uniforms so they stop in, buy one of those posters and torn it up in front of the shop owner explaining to him the gross disrespect that poster was to the uniform. The shop owner placed a sidearm on the counter as a threat. Fuck you, Republican pseudo-patriots! I mean, seriously dudes! Trump wasn't even man enough to brave a little light rain to go to Normandy! What a wimp!
          Anyway, watch this video of Malcolm Nance speaking at the USC Price Safe Communities Institute on 10 Aug 2018:
          Advance to timemark 19:15, where he talks about it. Hollywood got the ranks entirely wrong. Ice Cube's role was supposed to be based on then-Chief Malcolm Nance, this black Navy guy who apparently everybody was talking about because he was all over the place in Iraq. The original treatment was supposed to include a Navy Chief, but then they wanted everybody to be Army so they screwed it all up. The f***ing idiots!
      • From 1976 to 1982, I was a Cold Warrior serving on a Strategic Air Command (SAC) base in the Northern Tier of our nuclear defense. I served as a digital communications technician a Communications Command tenet organization supporting the mission.
        Towards the end of my active duty, I attended Leadership School, the first level of the USAF NCO Academy. Part of our classroom instruction was ... (wait for it) ... (wait for it) ... (wait for it) ... (wait for it) ... (wait for it) ... Marxism and Communism.
        According to your own "educational model" of indoctrination, that could mean nothing else but the US Air Force wanting to indoctrinate us in Marxism and Communism in order to turn us all into Commies!!!!!!
        BULLSHIT!! You idiot!
        The purpose was for us to know and understand our enemy so that we could more effectively fight against him. You f***ing IDIOT!
    3. And in addition I responded to your Message 1961 in this very same topic with my own Message 2015, to which you, coward (or are you hiding something more sinister?), never replied):
      Should religion be taught with evolution in schools?

      This issue may be better addressed by a discussion on whether religion should be encouraged in education or not.

      EWolf's ideas about education seem to consist of nothing but dunnage (a play on what I recall his original "nom de forum" to have been). If he were to have any clue, then he would know better to advance his "arguments."

      In Message 2004 I quoted briefly from the State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences found in the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve; that policy statement superceded the 1972 Anti-Dogmatism Policy. In Message 2004 my citation (EWolf: do please note that word choice which is totally unrelated to the word, "sight"):

      quote:
      "Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
      and later in the same document:

      "We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them."


      Eleven years ago in this very same topic, in Message 133 I quoted that policy in full and quote it in full again here for EWolf's edification:

      quote:
      The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypotheses.

      Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.

      Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

      To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

      A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

      From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

      Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

      Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.

      Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.


      In that same earlier message, I noted:

      DWise1 writes:
      "Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."

      Students need to have some degree of understanding of science and scientific concepts. Including "creation science" detracts from that goal.

      Students are not to be compelled to believe in the subject matter, but rather to understand it. For example, in 1982 the US Air Force instructed me in Communism. Obviously, the intent was not to compel me to embrace Communism, but rather for me to know more about our opposing superpower (that was during the Cold War). "Creation science" "public school" materials explicitly and specifically seek to compel belief.

      Including "creation science" in the science classroom would obviously be contrary to science education.

      OTOH, it is very important for creationists that their children do learn everything they can about evolution. If they wish their children to be able to fight against evolution, then keep them ignorant of their avowed enemy and being grossly misinformed about that enemy will only guarantee their defeat. And the defection of their children to their enemy.

       

      We normals understand education's purpose to be for the student to gain knowledge and understanding of facts and ideas whether the student actually believes in those ideas or not. Hence we can study any idea without having to subscribe to that idea ourselves (eg, Communism, Nazism, fascism, Animism (spirits inhabiting nature), feudalism, all forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, flat earthism, polygenesis (the idea that human races each have seperate origins (eg, God created the "sub-human races" separately from Adam) and hence forms the basis for Nazi race theory and American racism), organized criminal practices). And of course practice follows purpose, so students are presented with factual presentations and analysis but are never coerced nor forced to subscribe to the ideas. One of the bottom lines is that the student is expected and encouraged to think.

      It appears that EWolf's inability to understand any part of education as delineated above is because creationists' "Christian education" has almost entirely different purpose and goals and hence, since practice follows purpose, entirely different methods. It should be noted that "Christian education's" purposes and methods are very much the same as practiced by most all other religions, cults, and ideologies (eg, Nazism, Communism, GQP-ism). Their bottom line is to dictate what the student must believe and to compel that belief; IOW, the student is forbidden to think and instead is forced to comply.

      The operative word for EWolf's "Christian education" is indoctrination. And because he and other creationists and fundies only think of education in terms of indoctrination, they accuse us of indoctrination too even though nothing could be further from the truth. In support of this, please consider the "public school edition" "equal time" "creation science" classroom materials, which always end by urging the students to decide between their "unnamed Creator" and "atheistic evolution" all while giving a very distorted picture of evolution and a glowing (and fact-free) picture of creation. IOW, they're using the public schools (a government agency) to proselytize.

      And to make matters even more muddled, they appear to have an inherent belief that in order to learn something you are required to believe in it. Yeah, I know, weird! That became very apparent in one on-line exchange I had with a creationist. Since practically every creationist I've encountered has demonstrated almost complete ignorance of evolution coupled with horrific misconceptions, I have very frequently (almost constantly) urged creationist to please, please, please learn something about evolution if for no other reason than to concentrate their anti-evolution efforts on evolution itself instead of wasting them on complete nonsense. This one creationist's response was absolute horror as he adamantly refused to learn anything about evolution: "Studying evolution would mean I would have to believe in it!" Complete and utter idiocy! And that is the kind of idiotic nonsense we have to deal with when dealing with creationists.

       
      So as for EWolf's two specific questions/"points":

      Should religion be taught with evolution in schools?

      Why? Evolution is taught in science class. Teaching religion in science class is completely inappropriate. And indeed, EWolf's rhetoric repeated refers to the religion that he would want to have taught as "Biblical truth." Hence, he wants to have the Bible itself, not just the deliberately crafted "Hide the Bible" deception which is "creation science", taught in science class.

      Of course not! What possible pedogogic purpose could that possibly ever have?

      The closest valid reason for teaching about non-science subject matter in a science class would be to show past ideas that have since been proven wrong in order to provide some history and historical context (eg, spontaneous generation, the caloric theory and phlogiston to explain heat transfer, geocentrism, flat-earthism (which wasn't an actual thing what with Eratosthenes having measured the earth's circumference circa 240 BCE)). But of course EWolf would then complain bitterly if we were to include the Bible in such a manner in the science classroom.

      The other reason for mentioning popular pseudo-scientific ideas would be to expose their falsehoods (which "creation science" consists entirely of). Of course, this would have the effect of exposing creationism as the complete fraud that it is, something which I doubt EWolf would actually want. And despite all the creationist talk of wanting "equal time" and "balanced treatment" and "our reasons for opposing evolution are purely scientific, nothing religious about it" (that being the central lie and deception of "creation science", which was deliberately crafted to deceive the courts and the public). And yet when an actual honestly run "Two Model" class was held, the creationists hated it and forced it to be shut down.

      Somewhere around 1980, two professors at San Diego State University, Roger Awbrey and Bill Thwaites, started a "Two Model" class. At that time, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), then the cutting edge state-of-the-art YEC organization (they had literally created "creation science" and Flood Geology and were the foremost publishers of creationist "educational" materials) was still headquartered in nearby El Cajon and then in Santee, plus they had on their staff the leading professional creationists. Basically, whenever you were talking about creationism and creationist claims, you were talking about what the ICR said. Literally, guest creationists gave half the lectures and Awbrey & Thwaites gave the other half. Now, at many creationist debates it's traditional to have the audience vote on who won -- of course, since the audience would be packed with church groups along with other factors (eg, the creationist being far more experienced in these events and more polished through practice) the creationist would usually win the vote. Similarly, at the end of the semester the students would also vote for which side made the better case. Typically, science would win since now the students could actually examine and test the creationist claims. The campus Christian clubs kept protesting this course and I believe I was told also hold demonstrations against it. Finally, Admin grew tired of the ruckus and cancelled the course.

      So when they finally get a an actual two-model course in a school, the creationists oppose it. Now of course, in their presentations Awbrey & Thwaites would present the actual science that the creationists were misrepresenting, which means that they were responding to the creationists' claims -- I assume that the creationist was allowed to be present for those classes. In their presentations Awbrey & Thwaites could present what the creationists' own scientific sources (which the creationists had misquoted or misrepresented; AKA "quote-mined") actually said, a tactic that had been used very effectively against ICR VP Duane Gish in debate (overhead projection with two columns, on the left is what Gish said a source said and on the right is what it actually said). Also in one class Gish had repeated their false claim about the bombadier beetle (AKA "Bomby") that the two chemicals in its chemical defense would spontaneously explode when mixed, so Awbrey & Thwaites took beakers containing those two chemicals and mixed them together right in front of Gish in class (as well as in glass!) and no explosion. Gish mumbled something about somebody else having screwed up and misinformed him, but for several years afterwards Gish continued to use that same claim which he had admited in public to be false.

      Also, regarding those debate votes there is a story. In a report on a debate in Redlands, Calif, the reporter had surveyed the parking lot filled with Christian school and church buses and cars bearing ΙΧΘΥΣ fish and fundamentalist bumper stickers and he estimated that at least 90% of the audience arrived pro-creationism. At the end of the debate, creationism got two-thirds of the vote so the creationists declared a victory. But in reality they had lost about 23% of the audience (dropping from 90% to 67%), so they actually lost.

      This issue may be better addressed by a discussion on whether religion should be encouraged in education or not.

      No, not encouraged, since that would involve government establishment of religion which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

      However, that does not mean that it shouldn't be taught in the appropriate classes and in an appropriate manner. As the Science Framework says:

      quote:
      Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).

      Rather, the appropriate place to encourage religion is in the church, in the public square, and ultimately in the home. The authority to determine what religious instruction a child should receive resides in the parents and in the parents alone! Seeking to have the government take that parental right away from the parents is an abomination!

      Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset.

      Just what the hell are you talking about? What "evolutionary mindset"? No such thing exists any more than there's an "electronics mindset" or a "muffin method mindset."

      All you're doing is repeating a fake bogeyman that was created to scare you. If you truly believe that there is such a thing, then you must present it and your evidence for it, and then be ready to discuss it.

      BTW, there is absolutely no inherent conflict between a supernatural creator god and evolution. An actual creationist believes that a Creator created the physical universe and hence the real world is as we find it because that's how it was created to be and to function. As such, there can be no conflict between that Creator and the findings of science. Conflict arises only when a creationist holds beliefs that are contrary to fact and hence believes that if the real world is actually as we find it then that disproves God. For example, John Morris, now-President of the ICR, stated "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Well, the earth is in fact very much older than 10,000 years, so according to him Scripture has no meaning, which I know from my Jesus Freak training is that same as saying God either does not exist or is totally unworthy of worship. Congrats, creationists, you have accomplished what even the most rabid anti-theist could never do: you have disproven God.

      But if evolutionary teaching is to be seen as that of pure science, then why do scientists that support Biblical creation tend to be looked down upon?

      By "scientists that support Biblical creation" I take you to mean creationists. And particularly those of the "creation science" ilk. Practitioners of a deliberately created deception.

      Creationists are looked down upon because they are party to a political agenda that attacks science education, trying to damage it and even destroy it. They misrepresent what science is and teaches, often even to the point of outright lying -- while most followers, undoubtedly including yourself, know far too little to realize that they are peddling falsehoods, the better educated creationist know better and yet they zealously push the lies. That is especially true of the creationists with actual scientific training.

      So, what about their sorry misdeeds and malfeasance is not deserving of being looked down upon?

      I started studying "creation science" back around 1981, four decades ago. I sincerely wanted to learn what their evidence was, only to learn that it didn't exist. The more I looked into their claims, the more I could see them lying about science. Then I encountered their deliberate lying and other forms of gross and flagrant dishonesty. In all those four decades, I have never seen a creationist present a single valid argument nor truthful claim. Never! Nothing but lies and deception from hypocrites who claim to worship a god that is the personification of Truth. You keep paying lip service to "Biblical truth." Coming from a creationist, I recognize that as code for "even greater numbers of even more audacious lies."

      Thank you for your "Christian witness." Actually reading the Bible is what innoculated me from Christianity. "Creation science" provides me my boosters to keep me save from that false religion. Considering that about 80% of those raised in the faith grow up to run away from that religion as fast as they can, it is helping them as well.

      Gee, having had all that knowledge and wisdom dumped upon you, how could you still be so completely ignorant of obvious facts?
  3. Truth should support truth, but in four decades of studying "creation science" and its many claims and arguments, I cannot say that I have ever encountered a single one which has proven to be true, or even valid in any way. Creationism has proven to be nothing but a pack of lies. Since when must the truth be supported by lies?
 
I hope that you will reply this time. Or will you still flee?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2065 by Theodoric, posted 09-24-2022 10:46 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7564
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 2065 of 2069 (898455)
09-24-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2064 by dwise1
09-24-2022 6:30 AM


Dwise1 on the hunt
I love it when he gets is dander up.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2064 by dwise1, posted 09-24-2022 6:30 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2066 of 2069 (898482)
09-25-2022 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


I'll start right off by repeating yet again one of my questions that you have never answered:
DWise1 writes:
Why do you advocate that the government should be compelled to impose indoctrination in some arbitrarily chosen religion on school children in direct violation of their parents' right to choose the religious tradition to raise their children in?
If you wish to falsely claim that you have done no such thing, then support your false claim! Refer to my Message 2015 again for the points about education that you would need to address.
Now to address your latest advocating that the government conduct such indoctrination.
Where there is war there are battles and the battles for the truth of our beginning are intense! The fight is over which is to be considered as fact. The effort to teach evolutionary doctrine to the coming generation as fact directly opposes not only the church that informs of the Biblical word of God by which we all live, ...
What the hell are you babbling about?
  • What "battles" in what "war"? Oh! It's this f**king stupid "culture war" that you fundies and GQP have declared on all us normals, isn't it?
    Dude! Wake up! You're being fed a stream of lies! A firehose of lies!
    Referring to creationism, there's this local YEC activist (call him "Bill") who got started over 30 years ago. Longish story (I've been observing him over 30 years and had an extremely unproductive 20-year-long email correspondence with him). Long story short, he would always evade with "gotcha" "impossible questions" (eg, "describe in complete detail every single evolutionary step from bacteria to blue whale"). I would indeed respond to his "unanswerable questions" expecting some kind of discussion (he would, after all, always express "extreme interest in knowing that answer", but then always evade all attempts at discussion of his question (that he was "so extremely interested in knowing.") Recently, he repeated the same "question" he had thrown at me in 1998 and which I answered but then he suddenly changed the subject. This time it was "How do you think sexual reproduction originated?", to which I responded by pointing him to my page on that exchange from 1998 and added a very simple and pertinent question: "In addition, what problems do you suggest sexual reproduction poses?" He completely ignored it, as always.
    I have finally come to realize that he is no better than the creationists we encounter online: all he knows is how repeat verbatim the BS he's been taught, so he does not understand it, which means that he cannot discuss it with anybody let alone even begin to defend it, which means that when caught in such a situation, he will attempt any escape possible.
    OBTW, are you noticing a pattern there?
    Also, this ties back to the difference between your indoctrination and our education. Since the goal of education is understanding the subject, that means that it is presented to us, they explain how it works (and whether it does), what its strengths and weaknesses are, and in the end we need to demonstrate that we can work with it and answer any questions about it and be able to explain it to somebody else well enough for them to also understand it. IOW, they get you to think about the subject. A central part of learning is to ask questions about the subject, even to the point of whether it does actually work and how, including subjecting it to proofs (assuming a sufficient mathematical basis that would be conducive to proofs -- eg, in calculus you learn how to perform an operation (eg, finding the derivative of a particular type of function, such as axn) by doing the proof for it ((axn)' = anx(n-1), which I rederived one late night just for fun nearly half a century after having learned it the first time)). That is the power of education: it prepares the student for being able to analyze a question and to discuss it and to work with it.
    But indoctrination doesn't give you the same skills as education does, not even close. In indoctrination, the goal is for you to be told what you are required to believe and then compel you to believe. You are not allowed (or at least discouraged) to think, to ask any questions, to test the subject in any manner. Nor to you ever learn how the subject is supposed to work. You just memorize it without any understanding. In the calculus example, you would just memorize the derivatives of the types of functions and never go through any proof. But if anybody asks you a question that requires you to understand the subject instead of just simply reciting what you had memorized, then you are unable to answer that question ... or even understand what is being asked. You can rattle off lots of claims without breaking a sweat, but you are then dumbfounded when asked to discuss even one of those claims. The single most terrifying question for someone who had only been indoctrination (and not educated) has proven to be: "What are you talking about?"
    Back to Bill as an example of indoctrination. For over 30 years Bill has been very active in "challenging" and "debating" "evolutionists", many of them actually trained in the sciences (he is a licensed Mechanical Engineer, but then some of the worst creationists are engineers because they don't actually know science nor how to do it, but rather only think that they do). And in all those decades of being exposed to so much good information which his indoctrination had trained him to ignore, his present statements are just as completely ignorant as his old ones from decades ago. He has not learned anything! (well, outside of which of his creationist claims he had to avoid using because his opponents could tear them apart with ease ... most of those are the young-earth claims which are also the weakest). He boasts of how much he knows, but he still, after all these decades of having evolution explained to him by experts, has no idea what evolution is nor how it works. The evidence for that is that nothing he has said in all that time made any sense at all. And he could never explain anything, not even why he would think that one of his "challenging" questions is supposed to pose any problem for evolution. And he would always run away in terror at the sight of that question: "What are you talking about?"
    Like every single other creationist, Bill avoids defining or describing or presenting or discussing what he thinks evolution is or how it works. Like you keep doing!
    Break that vicious cycle! Answer the question!
  • "The fight is over which is to be considered as fact."
    No, the fight is over whether to educate or to indoctrinate. Your side insists on indoctrination, which directly opposes the goal of education, which is as I quoted to you yet again in Message 2064:
    quote:
    Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
    To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
    A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.
    From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.
    Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board). If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.
    Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.
    ...
    However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
    Note the use of "shall" in the first sentence. The legal definition and use of "shall" is to identify a hard requirement, something which must be done.
    Note also that the purpose and goal of education is to promote knowledge and understanding of ideas independent of whether they are true or not (eg, we still teach about the Ptolometic system and spontaneous generation while also teaching what's wrong with them) and without compelling belief in them, whereas the indoctrination you are pushing for would work against knowledge and understanding while compelling belief in falsehoods. Historic note: during the Arkansas creationist trial (1981) a teacher broke into tears because the creationist law required him to lie to his students.
  • "The effort to teach evolutionary doctrine to the coming generation as fact directly opposes not only the church that informs of the Biblical word of God by which we all live, ... "
    Well, evolution is a fact. As long as you have populations of organisms doing what life always does, those populations will inevitably evolve, either by changing or by remaining the same (yes, statis is also a result of evolution). The evolutionary theory is our attempts to describe and understand how the fact of evolution works.
    Your attempts to ignore the obvious fact of evolution is just that, denial. And your objections to theory just demonstrate that you do not understand what a theory is, which is so sadly typical of creationists.
    Plus that brings us up against the enormous problem that you create by refusing to answer our very simple question: What the hell are you talking about? You keep bringing up "evolutionary doctrine" and "evolutionary mindset", BUT YOU NEVER TELL US WHAT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, NOR WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!
    To repeat my questions yet again:
    DWise1 writes:
    1. There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.
      All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.
    2. What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.
      Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?
    3. That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.
    4. What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.
    5. I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?
    6. Why do you advocate that the government should be compelled to impose indoctrination in some arbitrarily chosen religion on school children in direct violation of their parents' right to choose the religious tradition to raise their children in?
      If you wish to falsely claim that you have done no such thing, then support your false claim! Refer to my Message 2015 again for the points about education that you would need to address.
    7. Bonus Question: Since all theology is created by Man, if error is found in one's theology, then what does that mean about God? And what should one do about that error which has been found?
    NEW QUESTION: Why do you refuse to answer any of these highly pertinent questions? What are you trying to hide? What kind of neferious intent are you practicing?
    Also:
    ... directly opposes not only the church that informs of the Biblical word of God ...
    Well, that wouldn't be the case if your church and your fallible human interpretations of the Bible (including your reading a lot of extra nonsense into your Bible which you fundies do far too often) weren't so contrary to fact and contrary to reality.
 
More to come, especially concerning your nonsense about the Declaration of Independence. Though I guess you're going to ground yet again to avoid reality. That doesn't help anybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21153
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2067 of 2069 (898488)
09-25-2022 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


EWolf writes:
What have we repeatedly seen through the years of nations with rulers that ignored the reality of God? We often hear demands of proof that God is real. But we find it all around us if we care to notice. For example, if we were not created, then why are we commanded to remember a thing called the Sabbath? Who commanded us? What does the seventh day remind us of? Why should it be kept holy other than the fact that we all are under a holy God that commands us? What has the sabbath to do with evolution if evolution is true? The Sabbath is not the 1.656 trillionth day!
Yes, exactly. That's why we all pray toward Mecca five times a day. And why we don't consume alcohol. And why we fast during Ramadan. And why we meditate and chant texts from the Bhagavad Gita on Bodhi Day. And why we don't accept loans. And why we use E-meters to to measure clarity. And why we slaughter chickens on Kaparot. And why we make sure our daughters have large dowries. And why we wear no clothes to honor Lord Mahavira. And why we refuse blood transfusions.
This is all proof of God, and it all makes sense, if we care to notice.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5274
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2068 of 2069 (898543)
09-25-2022 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


EWolf, Creationists Must Learn Evolution For Their Own Good
In the meantime, here are some more thoughts about the contrast between education and indoctrination and how indoctrination impacts creationists so negatively, such that:
It is absolutely imperative that creationists be educated in evolution in order to be able to fight it. As it now stands, creationists know nothing about evolution because they have been indoctrinated with lies instead have having been educated. As a result, they are unable to explain or defend creationism.
Remember (as discussed in my Message 2064 and Message 2066) that:
  • The goal of education is for the students to understand the subject matter without compelling belief in it. That means that the student can study any subject in order to know about it and to understand it. The process of education leads to the student knowing the facts about the subject, how it works (or doesn't), its strengths and weaknesses, supporting evidence for it, and (perhaps the most important aspect) being able to explain it to someone else. Furthermore, the student is encouraged to think about the subject matter and even to question it, even to the point of testing it (with testing often being part of the study plan).
    Thus through the process of education, the student comes out with valuable skills for learning and assessing a subject as well as being able to discuss it.
  • The sole goal of indoctrination is to tell the student what he is required to believe and then to compel him to believe it. The student does not learn anything more about it nor is expected to think about nor understand it. For that matter, questioning it is either discouraged or outright forbidden, while the very thought of testing it is never allowed to arise.
    Education increases knowledge and understanding.
    Thus the process of indoctrination deprives the student of the valuable skills from education. The victim of indoctrination is left completely unable to even explain any of it. Thus indoctrination leaves its victim incapable of discussion.
    Indoctrination only increases ignorance.
Before I had given much thought about the difference between education and indoctrination, I had a very telling online exchange with a creationist (I'm sure it was on CompuServe). It was so painfully obvious that he didn't know what he was talking about regarding evolution that I tried to encourage him to study evolution so that he could mount a better offense against it. He absolutely refused to do so because "Learning education would require me to believe in it!" That is a classic consequence of viewing learning as indoctrination, as well as very strong motivation to never ever convert to his mind-narrowing religion.
Now consider this Scripture (well, it should be included):
quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
Your avowed enemy is evolution (or rather your grossly bizaare misrepresentation of it, or whatever it is you call "evolution"), yet you are completely ignorant of it. As per Verse 32, you might still have a chance so long as you know yourself, but you don't. You are also greatly ignorant of yourself. Therefore, you are certain in every battle to be in peril, as per Verse 33.
And also a non-scroll source, the Governor of Mississippi, circa 1990, give or take a few years, quoted here from memory from a radio newscast at the time. He was explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state:
quote:
We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!
But creationists haven't learned that simple lesson, cleaving to ignorance as if their very souls depended on their ignorance. Yet another reason to stay far away from your religion.
That is why I have been asking you those questions which you must be able to answer in order to know your enemy and to know yourself! Yet again:
  1. There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.
    All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.
  2. What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.
    Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?
  3. That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.
  4. What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.
  5. I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?
Those are the questions that you must be able to answer, or at least be able to take a serious attempt at. But you cannot. Therefore, in every battle you will be in constant peril.
And of course there's still that other question that you also keep dodging:
Why do you advocate that the government should be compelled to impose indoctrination in some arbitrarily chosen religion on school children in direct violation of their parents' right to choose the religious tradition to raise their children in?
If you wish to falsely claim that you have done no such thing, then support your false claim!
Please come out of hiding and address the issues. At least try to answer the questions.
Or are you conceding that you have absolutely nothing?
Please come out of hiding and address the issues. At least try to answer the questions.
And please stop trying to sabotage the ability of young creationists to join the battle against evolution by preventing them from learning about it. Here is the testimonial of one such young person who I think has become an atheist because of creationism:
quote:
Also a propos is this quote by a former young-earth creationist, Steve Rauch (from The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics at Glenn R. Morton's old site circa 1998):
quote:
About a year and a half ago, I was a firm special creationist. I am now a believer in evolution; not even sure if God is required. In 1995, Glenn Morton wrote to Stephen Jones about Stephen's provisional acceptance of common descent (as quoted by SJ Sunday, January 11, 1998 5:16 PM), "I know exactly how difficult a paradigm shift like that is." Well, let me tell you, the shift is absolutely devastating. I'm still struggling with all this. I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

That's what "arming them with ammo against evolution" is: just handing them blanks.
Thank you for your continual and steadfast support for the growth and spread of atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8589
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 2069 of 2069 (898556)
09-26-2022 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2061 by EWolf
09-23-2022 10:20 PM


EWolf writes:
Although Biblical Creation truth is normally taught in church, isn’t it the responsibility of our educational institutions to support it?
If by Biblical Creation truth you mean creationism . . .
No more so than Flat Earth or Geocentrism. Our education institutions supports science that is backed by evidence.
Where there is war there are battles and the battles for the truth of our beginning are intense! The fight is over which is to be considered as fact. The effort to teach evolutionary doctrine to the coming generation as fact directly opposes not only the church that informs of the Biblical word of God by which we all live, but also the Declaration of Independence (DOI) that reinforces what the Bible teaches.
It's a matter of evidence, and creationism lost that fight a long time ago.
Promotion of evolutionary doctrine as fact to the coming generation parallels the brutal efforts to eliminate everything that represents God from American culture.
It is creationists who claim that if evolution is true then God is false. Science doesn't teach that. Apparently, you don't know of the millions of Christians who accept evolution. This is an excerpt from a letter signed by over 15,000 Christian clergy:
quote:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
The Clergy Letter Project
Perhaps you should listen to your own Christian brothers and sisters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by EWolf, posted 09-23-2022 10:20 PM EWolf has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022