quote:Should we yank the ‘Big Bang’ theory? If the universe had a beginning it had a beginner. That sounds an awful lot like creationism to me.
Huh? That makes no sense.
First, you don't seem to understand what the Big Bang is. It is not a description of the creation of the universe. Instead, it is a description of the expansion of the universe. The creation of the universe happened before the Big Bang.
Second, where is your evidence that "if the universe had a beginning, it had a beginner"? That is not accepted as a given.
Third, we can directly observe the effects of the Big Bang. That's why it exists as a theory.
quote:Or maybe we should not teach about DNA. DNA is passed on from parent to child and insures that the child will be of the same species as the parents. (Unless altered by mankind) DNA is also an information rich system; Information transmission is the hallmark of intelligence; sounds an awful lot like a Creator to me.
Huh? That makes no sense.
First, you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild.
Second, DNA is not an "information rich system." And "information transmission" certainly isn't any sign of intelligence.
By your logic, your parents are gods. Surely that isn't your argument, is it?
quote:I believe ‘Science’ should only be restrained by Facts, and Evidence. Not by what someone believes or wants to accept.
That's why creationism isn't taught in science class: It has no facts or evidence.
That's why evolution is taught in science class: It is based solely upon facts and evidence.
quote:If there is good and strong evidence to support a hypothesis, why should it be held back from our students?
So tell you what: Every year we'll do a survey of all the biology journals to examine how many articles support creationism and how many support evolution. Would you accept that? After all, if creationism had "good and strong evidence" to support it, then surely it could survive peer review and make it into the journals, yes?
Would you accept that?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
First, instead of actually replying to the current state of the conversation you are simply going back and making assertions that have been addressed and refuted as though they were never addressed.
Classic Creationist tactic.
But to address your rehash, something beginning does not mean that there was a beginner. You are simply wrong there.
DNA is no more an information rich system than any other chemical molecule or reaction. Chemical reactions are not a sign of intelligence. Again, you are simply wrong.
I believe ‘Science’ should only be restrained by Facts, and Evidence. Not by what someone believes or wants to accept.
If there is good and strong evidence to support a hypothesis, why should it be held back from our students?
You have not provided any evidence to support any other hypothesis; there is no Creation model to teach.
and now to catch you up on the conversation....
quote:I'm sorry but does ANYTHING in your post have to do with what the Genesis 1 account actually says, or with the mutually exclusive account in Genesis 2&3?
and again, what does that have to do with the topic or the issues raised in Message 234
quote:The thread begins with an assumption that religious creation myths can be taught.
quote:If we are to teach creation in public schools, which creation story should we teach? Do we teach Genesis? If so which version of Genesis? Do we teach the story of the Norse gods carving the world from the bones of giants? Or the Hindu belief that the world is God's dream? Heck, even Christians don't agree on a literal six-day creation less than 10'000 years ago or Genesis as metaphor for divinely inspired evolution...
I say evolution belongs in the science classroom and creation belongs in comparative religion...
So the question is "Which religions creation myths should be taught?"
The intent of the Founding Fathers is of course, irrelevant since we are talking about what should be taught today. For example we understand that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that a slave would be considered three fifths of a freeman. Even if the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Christian Creation myths should be taught, we are dealing with today.
The OP also specifies that creation myths should be in a comparative religion class, and so the issue of separation of Church and State is not an issue.
So the question is, which Creation Myths should be taught? Should we include both of the Christian Creation myths and which other myths should be included to fill the coursework?
Yes, they could teach it that way if they were completely incompetent, and had done no research; or simply chose to lie outright about the Biblical account of creation.
Actually, looking at what YOU propose as compared to what is actually in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 I would let the audience decide which version is more likely a lie.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Yes. The Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments of Genesis and commentary on Genesis
Um let me get this striaight you are saying that archeological evidence suports that the world was formed before the sun cause they found some scrolls that say so. Is this realy what you are trying to say? Or am i reading something wrong
Not mine, I did not come up with the definition; nor did I tell them what to say or think. I simply quoted what they themselves have said. I you’re not happy with there definitions or ideas I’m sure they would not mind you giving them your two cense.
The "divine foot" is not kept out of the door a priori. It is not included in science because no such thing has ever been observed directly or indirectly.
Well, that’s a find opinion; if you have any facts to discus, I would love to correspond with you.