Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

nice strawman of what i said, i said nothing about doing any such thing, i was talking about evidence, definitions of words, such as what is information and complexity. if you want to whine about how people take your views go for it, but it doesn't help anyone to take you seriouslythe reasons that Yec,etc don't want ID taught is because it still marginalizes gods power and makes humans less perfect and important. its all about whether they go to heaven for most of them, taking out god is not the way to do it.
most people who do support ID think its science to wedge god back into schools oh stop whining, hyperbole doesn't help you very much they arn't afraid to do this, they lost already back in the 80's they would be thrown out before someone could talk about jesus, much less the flood
the thing is, if the teacher is teaching a class on religion, where it should be taught, they can rip it appart, but why would they as a teacher? ask those people who posted 30+ times, i only posted once, so don't blame me for your additude about making faulty statements and getting called on it call me when AiG knows a thing about science or evolution, because i've read enough to know they have zero knowledge of eather and should never be allowed near children for fear of making them stupid

I was just trying to remind people what I posted at first, before all the "cross your T's" stuff came up, disguised as a responce to some imaginary debate I started.I made a blanket statement in my first post.And it was generally true. Creation already can be taught by teachers (I suppose there is a small chance of a student telling his parents and then a protest).Evolution can generally be criticised (though there have been examples of teachers getting fired for showing the results of research from current science journals as a means of questioning the textbook).Teachers can even talk about God if they are asked about him/it.Interesting thing on Geology I was exposed to in the 5th grade.I remember back when I was in public school that teachers would have us shake some sort of sealed water container(looked like an ant farm)full of dirt and sediments and then let us see all the layers form when everything settled.Honestly I didnt know it had anything to do with God (who wasnt mentioned) or a global flood (maybe the teacher wanted us to feel that local floods formed the geo-strata,I have no clue),but I think that many students were exposed to this type of technique.I say that because when I moved to a different part of the state (Maryland), students asked our 8th grade Science (her specialty,unlike the 5th grade teacher) teacher about those "shaky things" (I forget what they were called), when Geology was discussed, and the teacher got angry and,while not mentioning the Flood(I dont think any teacher ever specifically said anything about the Flood), she said something to the effect that the view was outdated and old. Either you havnt been listening,or you dont have enough information.Or both. (I also fit the description of the latter)The dont want Creationism of any type taught.Hopefully, their position will be made clear soon (Im refering to the PR firm),if it hasnt already.Generlly, Creationists (not as a group) will want more up to date material presented from mainstream journals.The "scheme", if there is any, is to show that aspects of evolution arent cast in stone.The issue is far more complicated than it sounds (Creationists position on teaching requirments).Putting aside the issue of Creationism (sort of), I can tell you that most Christians, who are of an evangelical mindset, relly really (REALLY) dont want Genesis 1-11 to come up very often unless in the company of Christians who are educated on theological, linguistic , and (to a lesser extent) scientific issues.In private conversations and especially schools.I dont think you have to worry about evangelical Christians (especially ones who have degrees in Science fields) trying to ram Creationism into schools.Or even to allow the issue to slip in.

MightPlaceNimrod writes: Creation cannot legally be taught in American public schools--least of all in the science classroom.Any teachers who try this operate outside the law. They gamble with their careers and the resources of their entire school system. The problem is not 'a small chance of a protest,' as you say. It is the virtual certainty of a lawsuit, which the teachers of creation would lose.As an idea divine creation can be discussed in a nonsectarian manner within humanities classes (philosophy, comparative religion, literature, mythology). Students can use the subject as a personal theme to their heart's content in the work they do for arts and creative writing classes.But supernatural ideas cannot be taught as science. The courts have been firm on this. Supernaturalism is inherently nonscientific. Legally it represents 'an inherently religious concept' that violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Do you have an example of this? I mean, where someone used the scientific literature to point out an error in a textbook and got fired for it? This sounds extremely unlikely on its face, unless the teacher was attempting to twist the literature (or quotemine) in favor of some kind of religious dogma. I'd be fascinated to read any articles you have links to on that issue.

My DVD player is busted,and my computer has a slow connection.If my DVD players worked,then I could easily get the information.http://creation.allinwonder.org/But on Seminar 7 (right near the start),Hovind gives names and phone numbers(the video version shows it)of teachers who have had troubles usually resulting in disciplinary actions like termination.Since this ex-teacher is an evolutionist,I dont think he and Hovind ever spoke.So his phone number may not be avaliable.There is only 1 example of where I ever heard of this type of thing: (Hovind provides info)being a firing for showing up to date information.Perhaps an isolated case.Before anybody goes crazy, by virtue of mentioning Hovind, keep in mind that he generally provides phone numbers of the people in question.

...a teacher can "anwser" almost any question that a student asks.If a teacher teachers evolution in a critical (or mocking) way then Im sure the issue of alternatives can and will come up.Not official school board material, infact quite un-official.But teachers have great freedom in giving their own views.The Status Quo of public school policies in the USA is generally what Creationists prefer.It mostly protects Christianity or Creationism from being bashed (or even coming up)by non-Christian teachers.The way Evolution is presently taught, in (U.S.of)American public schools, almost gurantees that students wont ever think of it having anything to do with the issue of the Bible.It is sort of a wall of protection for students from non-Christian(and non-Jew,etc.)teachers.But then,if the teacher is a Creationist, then the teacher can discuss the Science text book's material however he or she wants to.Teachers arent there in classrooms to just to read from the textbooks.Their commentary (critical and non-critical)is what makes them what they are.

Thanks. However, even without getting into why I consider Hovind a less-than-reliable source of information on anything (if he said the sky was blue, I'd want independent corroboration), my computer is well on its way to the Great Computer Junkyard in the Sky, and consequently doesn't take well to internet downloads. I'd appreciate it if you could provide a transcript of the relevant claim. I don't need the guy's phone number - just a verifiable account, even if it is a media account. I guarantee that if a teacher anywhere got fired for something they taught, then it would be a newspaper item somewhere. Until then, given the source, we'll have to take this one as a "just-so" story, I think.

I agree with that. But there, I disagree.Sure, the creationist teacher can state that he/she is a creationist, and doesn't personally accept ToE. But he cannot actively teach that evolution is wrong. There is a curriculum, and the teacher is expected to teach that curriculum. If his own beliefs prevent him/her from teaching the curriculum, he should insist that he not be assigned to teach the class that deals with evolution.Note: the "can" and "cannot" above are not comments on legality (which would mostly be case law). Rather, they are comments on what I would consider ethical for a teacher.

MightyPlaceNimrod: Indeed. It's interesting that recent 'teach the controversy' moves have been defeated on exactly this point.Anti-evolution activists, reluctant now to mention ID, have tried to alter the language of science standards to say things like 'problems with the theory of evolution will also be discussed in the interest of promoting critical thinking.'The proposed changes lose when science teachers come forward and say they already have the freedom to discuss any problems that exist with any theory._

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

There is no difference.

---

Yes, there is.One is designed by an Intelligent Designer, and the other is not.

quote:

---

No, I am saying there is no difference.

---

But there is a difference.One has a designer, and one does not.

quote:

---

Design is part of evolution. How large a part we do not know.

---

Natural selection designs everything alive in nature.Wind, rain, tectonics, etc. designs everything else.If you are referring to an intelligent, purposeful supernatural designer, there is no evidence that one exists nor is working.

quote:

---

These are very accurate scientific statements. Evolution is a process of adaptation...this whole process may in fact be a learning process.

---

How does a species of fern "learn"?

quote:

---

Neither of these are scientific statements.

---

They are obviously factual statements.Viruses do not learn. Plants do not learn. The organic molecule caffeine does not learn.Where a raindrop lands on the ground is mindless and random. How the wind carves out a stone bridge is mindless and random. How a river erodes it's banks during the spring thaw is mindless and random. Where a rock bounces on it's way down a mountainside is mindless and random.

quote:

---

You have drawn mental boundaries where they do not necessarily exist.

---

Demonstrate the learning ability of a fern and I'll redraw my "mental boundries".

quote:

---

You have placed a boundary on what it means to learn.

---

Yes. It is commonly called a "definition."You wish to use a rather broad, vague definition of the word "learn" that is not appropriate for a scientific discussion, nor for what we were discussing.I have, by the way, utterly no idea what some doctor harvesting organs from deceased infants without their parents' knowledge has to do with this discussion, so I am baffled at why you would post a link to a story about him.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

There is no other. There is only one. Quite incorrect. Both views acknowledge design and intelligence relating to the process. How they relate is the question.
One makes no claim, the other claims these aspects are driving the process. Through chemical signals like we do. They are not. Really? what proof do you have to counter the evidence I provided in my links? What evidence do you have that supports this? Science has no answers here. I need not. These are sufficient to support my statement.
'Minds' of plants - Washington Times
Learn to shorten your links
http://ard.unl.edu/rn/0397/fungi.htm
http://home.hccnet.nl/v.kleven/engels/allelo.shtml This is an incorrect statement. We are discussing the entire process not your narrow view. One must look at it as a whole and not from one view to be scientific. We are but one small step in the process. Animals in general are another ect... To ingnore this is being very ignorant of the facts.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Both views acknowledge design and intelligence relating to the process.

---

Naturalistic explanations for biological systems do no such thing.

quote:

---

Through chemical signals like we do.

---

That is silly.You are using an inappropriate and vague meaning for "learn".My definition is this:1. to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience.Plants, viruses, and organic molecules can't do this.Why not provide your definition?Can you demonstrate how a fern studies something? Please also demontrate how the organic molecule caffeine can study.

quote:

---

What evidence do you have that supports this?

---

There is no evidence that anything else is happening?

quote:

---

We are discussing the entire process not your narrow view. One must look at it as a whole and not from one view to be scientific.

---

One must define our terms precisely to be scientific.You are not doing this in the slightest.Why not start now?Define "learn" as you are using it.

Really? So intelligence is not natural? What evidence supports such a claim? On the contrary. My definition is much more meaningful to evolution as a whole. You need to adjust your definition to include all of the process. Things have evolved. We are but one step in hundreds of millions of years. Do tell. The passing along of information.
It is a natural process.
All living things do it.

I disagree.Computers are far better than we of passing along information. Yet they appear unable to learn.Maybe try some of the writings of Piaget.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

what? that science expects you to make backed up statements? from what i understand scientists are even worse about this to other scientists than what you see as a terrible thing. i supose its all about it being able to stand up to disection yes, just not science teachers, religion teachers can do this all they want, but they also have to teach about other religious views.
it is agenst the law to teach creationism in science class rooms, since science is supposed to be factual, you would expect some of it would be true and other theories would be false. unlike say a religious class were you can have more than one view because theres more than one religion and no one really can say which one is rightif a teacher is asked about god and gives thier views on it, they should be fired, since it violates the first admenment, you do know that public schools being funded by the goverment makes them part of the goverment? thus the law applies to them. a teacher, just like anyone in the goverment represents the goverment i don't think its because of the "flood" but because she was exasperated at what people teach children, namely old and outdated things (that happen to be used to some how prove the flood) i've read AIG's site they don't know a damn thing about science or evolution did i say they did or they don't in that quote? no i did not i said, call me when they learn something about how science works or how evolution works, creationism doesn't even enter into it the ones that see that they can't erase evolution from peoples minds or remove it from schools, want this.
who says they are cast in stone? science isn't religion where anything said by someone is claimed to be unchangeable, where do you get the idea that people say science is set in stone? the reason is i think, is that if they try to argue genesis one as being true or fact, makes them look like idiots for even sugesting it.
i mean arguing that plants existed before the sun? this makes sense?genesis as fact is insane, genesis as myth makes sense after what we have learned you are kidding right? a majority of evangelicals want it in schools, they don't feel that its stupid to believe this or its absurd, because it came from god so it must be right.
you are flitering it through the smart people filter, they don't want it taught because they are smart enough to know the people who don't believe it will never allow it