Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I think you're making here the best case against creationism in science class. It seems in your mind that we should stop teaching anything in school just because your interpretation of the constitution is as dogmatic as anything else regardless of evidence (if we can't even teach 2+2=4 anymore, what could we actually teach?). You're showing that listening to creationnists may very well send us back to the dark ages (where the very computer you're using wouldn't even be possible). You seem to want to apply your interpretation of the law regardless of the insane and terrible consequences that would follow.The law is made by humans for the benefit of society, they are not like your bible to follow blindly without any moral considerations.

I think that what you and a lots of people are missing in this thread is that Robert doesn't even want to teach 2+2 = 4 or even that the Earth is spherical. What he is in fact advocating is abject ignorance for everyone. He must be aware that by destroying education, people will be easier to fool and convert for his own benefit (or his religion's benefit). His desire has nothing to do with education but is purely for his own gain but what he is missing is that it is thanks to scientific education that he is able to live in the comfort of a modern country instead of the misery of a 3rd world country. He doesn't seem to be pushing for his religion to be taught (even though it would be a bonus for him), he wishes nothing to be taught in order to be able to cheat people later on.In short, he's confident that he's the best conman out there but given his performance in this thread, I feel that his confidence is misplaced.

I know I shouldn't be responding to you since you won't understand it but imagine my religion asks me to rape and kill my neighbours, should the cops be prevented from arresting me since it would violate my religious rights?

Robert, do you actually want to scrap all schools? Do you really want to destroy education so everyone is equally ignorant? It may be your purpose but surely even you can understand why the state would be opposed to that. If it wasn't for education, you wouldn't even have the computer to type this on (remember that you can't make much if you teach 2+2=5).

Actually, what pisses me off more is that they are calling their BS science. They're trying to appropriate themselves the merit of years of hard work with none of the efforts. If they just said that creationism is true but it's not science, I wouldn't mind much. The problem is that they're trying to steal scientists works to their own ends.

A scientist opinion is not the same as science, otherwise we should be teaching alchemy as well (Newton believed in it). Whether you like it or not, current science works with peer-review and what you presented as ID is not science. It's possible you believe the current scientific community is mistaken and that your version (and ID) is more accurate. Claiming it won't make it so but there's a way to prove your point. Set up an academy with your friend and your new "science", if your opinion is superior, you will be able to make discoveries that will lead to better medicaments/technologies and you and your friends will become filthy rich.The point you seem to be missing is not that science works this way because of some dogma like religion, it's because it works and you get results and money from it. If your way is superior to the current scientific community, it will be obvious because you will get filthy rich and everyone will be able to check the results.

How is preventing schools from teaching 2+2=4 makes an intelligent populace. That's not searching for truth, that's hiding it. Remember, all you've argued was that we can't teach anything that runs counter to any religion at all, given that there are thousands of religion, we can't teach anything at all regardless of truth (that's according to you anyway).

Actually, you could disprove evolution by finding either an animal or fossil that doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy for example. What Taq is asking is a similiar thing for ID. As for your view of peer review, I would like to refer you to my message 561. To make it short, why are you not setting up your own version of a scientific community, ID has lots of funds and believers so it shouldn't be that hard. Since you believe your method to be superior, it should bring in lots of money and show the current scientific community their errors rather easily.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Whatever you think ID is (conclusion process or whatever else), you should still find a way to falsify it if you want to call it part of science. That's just how science works. You're saying yourself that it's a testable investigation and falsification is how you test it.What I pointed in the last part of my message is that you thought that the current scientific community is doing science wrong (peer review is a part of it). The reason the current system is in place is not out of dogma but just because it works and brings money in. The thread is about an argument for creationism in science class and since you don't feel creationism should have to follow the current scientific standards, then you should show why your own standards are better for science. You can do that by applying your method and get better results. The money part would prove undisputably that your method is in fact better (since the technology resulting from it would be more efficient).Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.