Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9094 total)
7 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (6 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,617 Year: 12,729/6,534 Month: 12/2,210 Week: 343/460 Day: 12/22 Hour: 4/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Message 265 of 609 (607397)
03-03-2011 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:47 AM

Robert Byers writes:
Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant.
Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught.
The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature.
Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy.
by the law it invokes.
Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law.
Somebody call a cop.
It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others?
I'm concerned that you seem unable to grasp the difference between evidentially-based material and faith-based material. I think it is safe to assume that you would not want your children being taught the Hindu origin myth as though it was on all-fours with the Christian origin myth. Please correct me if I am wrong.
What I'd like to understand better is this: If you seriously believe that this specific origin myth (Genesis) deserves equal time in the classroom with evidentially-based material, surely you must accept that, in the spirit of fairness, the many other faith-based origin myths (which many millions of people presently adhere to) should also be included?
If you work through this chain of logic, surely you can see why the Christian origin myth does NOT belong in the science classroom. Put simply, if it deserves time there, then so do multitudes of other unsupported assertions, leading to a colossal waste of time that would be better spent on the examination of tangible, evidentially supported material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:47 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2011 9:10 PM Briterican has replied
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:18 AM Briterican has replied

Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Message 270 of 609 (607486)
03-04-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
03-03-2011 9:10 PM

Re: why not the real american religious views
I think it would be an interesting class, but it would have to be a humanities, comparative religion, class, not a science class.
A VERY important distinction that Robert Byers does not seem to make. His arguments (if you can call them that) seem to indicate that he believes the law is prohibiting teachers from teaching the "truth" about our biological origins. Unfortunately I think he misses the point that his "truth" is neither established by evidence, nor shared by the rest of us.
As for the class you propose, I'd love to attend! "Social studies" is what we called it when I was in school. No idea what it would be called today (humanities I guess), just hopefully NOT "science".
PS I would have added interest in the native American myths as my mother's great great great great great grandmother (give or take a great) was a Choctaw squaw. Of course - I'd still consider them colourful tales of fancy and not literal truths
Edited by Briterican, : Said Havoc rather than Robert Byers, apologies Havoc. Edited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2011 9:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Message 291 of 609 (608060)
03-08-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:18 AM

You didn't answer me.
Robert Byers writes:
Chains of logic here are not getting your side to reach to the other side.
I'm not engaged in any such effort to reach "the other side"... I asked you a simple question, which you dodged.
Would you support the teaching of the Islamic or Hindu origin myth in science class alongside the Christian one that you have overtly said you would support?
I really would like to hear your answer to this, I'm not harassing you or trying to set you up... I'd honestly like to hear your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:18 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:01 AM Briterican has replied

Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008

Message 322 of 609 (608453)
03-10-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 4:01 AM

Robert Byers writes:
I didn't dodge. you didn't like my answer.
Its up to the people to decide through the legislature what is worthy for serious conclusions on origins or if just out of respect.
Sorry, still a dodge. I asked YOU if YOU would be happy with the Hindu or Islamic origin myth being taught in science class, as if it were on equal footing with the Christian origin myth, a question you still haven't answered.
As for this notion that the people should decide through the legislature, what happens when "the people" that get to decide this for the school your son goes to turn out to be predominantly Muslim and they opt for the Islamic origin myth to be IN science class, and the Christian one out?
Your position is failing miserably in this thread (even with the creationists), and your post count continues to rise whilst your "helpful input" quotient continues to drop.
Edited by Briterican, : Attack the position, not the poster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:01 AM Robert Byers 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