should creationism be taught in schools?

But cutting the throat of the public school system is one of their goals. Or rather of the Religious Right.Back in the early 80's and 90's, private investigator and former Pentacostal minister Skipp Porteous (Skipp Porteous - Wikipedia) kept close tabs on Religious Right groups and obtained internal documents. He obtained the Christian Coalition's five-year plan which explicitly included the destruction of public education to be replaced by their own Christian schools. That document named their key weapon for destroying public schools, which was to use school vouchers to rob them of funding.Well, that didn't work out for them, so Bush came up with "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) that would impose stringent testing of public school students in order to identify schools that didn't meet the program's standards, then finish those schools off by cutting their funding.Now, if a school is in trouble, you need to help it correct the problems, not euthanize it. Also, my son's complaint was that the program robbed them of the opportunity to learn; he said that the teachers were so busy preparing their classes for the test that they didn't have any time to teach. And one participant on talk.origins related when NCLB hit his daughter's school. Hers was the only school that would dare to offer programs for disabled students and that caused them to lose funding when their scores weren't high enough.

But "evidence that opposes evolution" is all that creationism is. Creationism has no actual model (despite your lying to us that it does) and it most certainly has no evidence for such a model (despite your lying to us that such evidence is "voluminous"). All that creationism has is "evidence that opposes evolution". And all of it is pure crap.So when you say that you don't want creationism to be taught, just "evidence that opposes evolution", then you are yet again lying to us.For a real-world experience in what happens when "creation science" is taught in the public school classroom, read up on Ray Baird's class in Livermore, California. Fifth-graders. The "public school" creationist materials he used fed them crap and then urged them -- no, insisted emphatically -- to decide then and there between the Creator and godless evolution. That is blatant proselytizing! Some of the students became atheists because of that class, because (as a fellow student stated in the PBS documentary, Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom (KPBS-TV, aired 7 July 1982):

quote:

---

Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it.

---

From No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/Livermore.html:

quote:

---

There is more than a little doubt that Baird gave equal time to evolution and creationism.

​

"I think it's true he gave more time to evolution," says one parent. "He spent 40% of the time telling the kids why creationism is good and the other 60% telling them why evolution is bad."

​

Another parent, whose child observed Baird teaching this subject three years ago, relates that while Baird succeeded in winning some converts to the creationist view, other students, including her own child, were so appalled that they completely rejected religion in their own lives. According to this mother, all the teacher really accomplished was to polarize the class into two camps, the believers and the nonbelievers. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)

​

One of the mothers writes:

quote:

---

The most dangerous information to the scientific creationists was the fact that the gifted students could see how bad the science was and that they were voting evolutionism which was, in the context of the course, the same as voting atheism. Some of the gifted students voted evolutionism because they could see the fallacy of the either-or approach. Some actually, in anger, did give up religious belief.

---

---

Please note that evolution doesn't require anyone to choose between God and atheism. Science doesn't require anyone to choose between God and atheism. Neither science nor evolution state that belief in God is incompatible with accepting science.It is only creationism that teaches that God is incompatible with science. It is only creationism that forces you to choose between science and God (not God, actually, but rather its false theology).We already know what will happen if creationism is taught in the schools. And it's the same thing as teaching "evidence that opposes evolution". And ID is just a more devious's disguised form of creationism.Edited by dwise1, : Added quote from webpage

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

One wonders how much creationists really want to pursue this position. Applying the logic of the first statement means that every single version of creationism should necessarily be presented. They are all, after all, interpretations ... every one of them.Comparative religion anyone?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarify

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Translation: Scientific journals are reluctant to print anything that smells of opposition to science ...This is why geology journals don't print the nonsense from the "RATE" group, which has not one thing to do with evolution, just as one example. The "front door" is called "doing science" as (surprise) that is what qualifies as doing science. ... are NOT arguments for either creation or ID.An argument FOR creationism, or FOR IDology would state something like:

• The theory of creationism (or IDology) states "If {X} then {Y}"
• A prediction based on this theory that would ONLY occur if this theory were true is {Z},
• {Z} occurs, here is the evidence (link, journal article etc).

No such argument has yet been made.No other kind of argument will make either concept scientifically valid. Ever.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

(1) this doesn't explain the existence of flat earthers:
http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/febible.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/fe-scidi.htm(2) this is irrelevant to the POINT, that anyone can have any old "interpretation" they want, but that does NOT make it legitimate or valid in ANY WAY.Such concepts as the flat earth are excellent examples to use in science class to show children that "interpretation" is not enough to be science, and that they fail because they are contradicted by reality.Facts are facts and do not need to be interpreted to be used. The fact that the earth goes around the sun does not need to be interpreted, it just needs to be seen.Now that we have demonstrated that "interpretation" itself is not a path to truth, you need to ask how you decide if a concept is true.Do you test it against reality?Do you test it for conformance to preconceived concepts?How did you decide on the issue of the flat earth? That's your interpretation. Flat earthers have a different one. Should we not teach both interpretations whenever one is taught? If your church only teaches one interpretation of the bible isn't that wrong? Shouldn't they be forced to teach all interpretations and let the people decide?How do you decide which interpretation is correct?Do you test it against reality?Do you test it for conformance to preconceived concepts?How did you decide on the issue of the flat earth?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So you've never heard of Cosmas Indicopleustes and his book entitled Christian Topography?Creationists have indeed asserted that the earth is flat, based on the Bible. But of course you can't cite chapter and verse for this, since the Bible does not say clearly that the Earth is a sphere.---But you are missing the point completely. The point is not that creationists are flat-earthers (most of them aren't) but simply that some people are flat earthers.Should we not, therefore, "teach both theories" to children and let them make their own minds up?Or should we just teach the facts, i.e. that the Earth is an oblate spheroid?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because many children don't go to church so they will never hear that side of things. Since children go to school, they will all have the opportunity to hear the evolution side of things.Also, one hour a week in church (for those who go) is unlikely to counter the evolutionary indoctination in the school because they will be left thinking the Bible is a mythical story and that science and reality insist that evolution is the truth.

---

Science classes don't mention religion at all. They are teaching what mankind has discovered about the secular world we live in, IOW, science.Religious institutions are responsible for teaching their religious viewpoints to those who wish to learn. Just because a religious institution is doing a poor job of teaching its followers, doesn't mean the secular school system has to take up the slack.If all religious institutions aren't teaching creationism or ID, again, why should the secular school system pick up the slack? It isn't their job to teach religion.I would think it would make more sense to revamp the religious teaching system.

quote:

---

Because many children don't go to church so they will never hear that side of things. Since children go to school, they will all have the opportunity to hear the evolution side of things.Also, one hour a week in church (for those who go) is unlikely to counter the evolutionary indoctination in the school because they will be left thinking the Bible is a mythical story and that science and reality insist that evolution is the truth.

---

So, does that mean that we should be teaching religion in public schools?So, which version of which religious story gets to be taught?Who gets to decide?There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations alone, let alone all of the other religions in the world.Also, can science teachers have equal time in the churches?

Not religion -the scientific evidence for design. None, the scientific evidence for design. They don't need it - kids are in school all week.My father is a marine biologist, by the way.(you did ask, I think)

Then supply the evidence. And soon or stop wasting people's time.You can use this thread perhaps: Distinguishing "designs"Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Sorry but so far you have presented no such critter, and the topic is "should creationism be taught in schools?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I keep hearing about the scientific evidence for design but nobody ever shows it. It's like asking for a magical jellyfish or something.

Neither do they need to -just teach the scientific evidence for design -ID -they can get the rest at church or not. I don't think anyone wants religion taught in the schools. They only want the evidence for design and possibly to balance evolution with a little bit of the evidence against it and preferably lose all the evolutionary proofs that are proven to be incorrect. Again it is not the teaching of religion that is being advocated -only the evidence for design. That's not religion, it is scientifically based and only science would be used, not any religion.

You have a 2 hour suspension.You can use the time to prepare opening posts or posts to other threads that give your evidence for ID and evidence against evolution.You have spent enough time pretending to have such evidence. Now you have to supply it or stay out of the science threads.

Hi Beretta,Given your recent posts I'm guessing that you're still not sure what's expected of you, so let me try to clarify. This would be a useful nice statement if the discussion were in the opening stages, it's always nice to get a clear statement of everyone's position, but you've already stated your position. Many times. By simply repeating yourself you're failing to address the rebuttals, which I won't bother to repeat here. If you'd like to avoid future suspensions then begin responding to what people have said so far about the problems with teaching the scientific evidence for design.Many have asked you about your evidence for design, but you haven't answered this either. If, for example, you'd like to discuss the bacterial flagellum, or perhaps blood clotting, or maybe the eye, then propose a thread over at [forum=-25]. I wouldn't recommend this thread because it is nearing 300 posts, and threads are usually closed after 300 posts.--Percy