Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Questions--moral perspective
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 73 (90439)
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


Greetings~
I have not studied evolution and creation as extensively as I am now for years. Nevertheless, I maintain a passion for it and am always open to hearing new ideas and topics. (By the way, I'm new here).
First off, let me say that I am quite busy in my personal life, so I apologize in advance if I go for several days without replying to somebody's post. I look forward to discussing honestly and openly any topics that come my way, and hope to teach, AS WELL AS LEARN, from my experiences on this website. For personal reasons, I will at no point reveal my name, age, nor any personal information.
No then, let's begin with a couple simple questions:
To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why? After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
To the creationists: If the creation movement is to prevail, why are you all caught up in disagreement and conflict amongst yourselves? Truly, the creation movement would most definitely make a stronger impact on the world of education if all the creationists out there could humble themselves to the point where they set aside their MINOR differences and focus on what's most important to them: that God created the universe and Christ died for all who sinned. Please elaborate on your answers.
Thank you for your time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2004 2:54 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 03-05-2004 3:55 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2004 3:58 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 03-05-2004 8:28 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2004 8:48 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 7 by nator, posted 03-05-2004 9:14 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 03-05-2004 12:06 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 14 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-05-2004 3:44 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 50 by 1.61803, posted 03-07-2004 11:05 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 73 (90441)
03-05-2004 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


Evolution is the "sole theory" because it has no rivals. There is no scientific alternative that even comes close. Therefore in the science classes evolution should be discussed.
What creationists are asking for is theocratic control of science classes and ultimately science itself. Without the latter their position will always be under threat because too many people will have access to the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 73 (90449)
03-05-2004 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


I've heard of rhetorical questions, but...
booboocruise asks:
quote:
To the creationists: If the creation movement is to prevail, why are you all caught up in disagreement and conflict amongst yourselves?
Oh come on, are you seriously wondering about this? That's like asking "why don't we all just go to the same church?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 73 (90450)
03-05-2004 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


New?
By the way, I'm new here
Are you? Could a moderator check this please? If you are the old booboocruise of a few months ago you have some unanswered questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-05-2004 9:20 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 73 (90475)
03-05-2004 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause?
Fundamentalist Christianity is not in itself a threat to the causes of good science and good education. Pseudoscience is.
After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
Because there is only one theory to teach that is scientific, not falsified, and non-religious: evolution. The U.S. Constitution prohibits teaching religious theries as science in science classes, and common sense prohibits teaching pseudoscience or falsified theories as science in a science class. It's fine to teach about creationism in comparative religion or sociology or psychology or history of science or similar classes, but creationism just ain't science; it's dogmatic religion. And, so far and for the foreseeable future, ID ain't science either (unless it develops to be something more than what it is now, just an argument from ignorance).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-05-2004 10:23 AM JonF has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 73 (90479)
03-05-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


Welcome back booboo, it's been awhile.
To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why? After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
Since a scientist can't really be said to have a "cause", except in the sense of preserving biodiversity or somesuch (like Wilson, Levine, Ehrlich, etc etc), I'm not sure your first question makes a lot of sense. Most practicing scientists, while perhaps aware in a vague sort of way that creationism exists, simply don't pay much attention to it - it doesn't intersect with their world. How many evolutionary biologists do you know that try and preach the Gospel According to Darwin from the church pulpit? By the same token, how many fundamentalists do you know that try and preach literalist biblical intepretation in molecular biology labs? There is simply no connection between the two. Which is as it should be.
Getting to the intent behind your question, rather than how you phrased it, there is a strong backlash against teaching biblical literalism in science classes. Science classes, especially in secondary schools, are intended to teach the fundamentals of science, covering the current scientific concensus on subjects as diverse as cosmology and physics as well as biology, not a narrow minority interpretation of Christianity, no matter how much the latter would wish it. Science classes in secondary school are designed to provide the student with some very basic concepts and an introduction to scientific methodology and (hopefully) critical thinking. OTOH, literalism CAN be taught - in comparative religion classes, or even in history and/or anthropology classes. Since the subject has neither evidential support nor any real relevance to the scientific endeavor, it is left quite alone in science classrooms.
You might be pleased to know that in some of the best secondary school science curricula I've seen, including the International Baccalaureate Biology program, there are several modules discussing creationism. The downside, of course, is that when exposed to the light of scientific evidence - even if presented in an even-handed way - creationism comes across looking extremely weak. Critical examination of the claims of creationism when contrasted to direct observation of the natural world fails abysmally. It's not clear to me why, under these circumstances, creationists are so adamant about including their ideas. They don't hold up very well - and this may in fact cause them to lose potential adherents or even have potential converts turn away from Christianity entirely. You're setting your entire religious worldview up for potential failure when you insist that literalism be compared actively to evolution and hence subject to scientific scrutiny.
A final note: evolution (in the sense of the modern neodarwinian synthesis) isn't the "sole theory" discussed in science classes. Especially in modules on the philosophy of science or history of science. Lamarckism, saltationism, and even creationism etc are usually covered in these subjects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 73 (90481)
03-05-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


quote:
Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why?
Fundamentalist Christianity is not a threat to the profession of science, unless a "The Handmaid's Tale"-type scenario were to play out.
Fundamentalist christianity is, however, a threat to the quality of our public science education, as they have repeatedly shown, and continue to show, that they are determined to try to impose their religious views into the science classroom.
quote:
After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting
The same reason the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system is the sole theory directed at a classroom setting.
The ToE is just as well-supported and fundamental to Biology as the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is well-supported and fundamental to Astronomy.
quote:
(I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
Well, sure, but since science class should be about science and not religion, wouldn't it be better to discuss various creation beliefs in a world religion class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 8 of 73 (90483)
03-05-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
03-05-2004 3:58 AM


Re: New?
IP addy is different, but he obviously signed in under the old registration of almost a year ago.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2004 3:58 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 73 (90503)
03-05-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by JonF
03-05-2004 8:28 AM


Interestting...
"The U.S. Constitution prohibits teaching religious theries as science in science classes, and common sense prohibits teaching pseudoscience or falsified theories as science in a science class."
--JonF
Actually, the U.S. Constitution disallows, in the first amendment, "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." but it DOES NOT prohibit teachers from taking class time to discuss alternatives to the evolution theory. By the way, in 1980 the supreme court ruled that the law forbids states to REQUIRE the teaching of creation, but it does not forbid the teaching of creation either. check the lawbooks.
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 03-05-2004 8:28 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 03-05-2004 10:38 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2004 11:22 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 03-05-2004 1:36 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 42 by nator, posted 03-07-2004 7:41 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 10 of 73 (90507)
03-05-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Servant2thecause
03-05-2004 10:23 AM


Re: Interestting...
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).
Now do a poll of biologists. Quite frankly I don't give a stuff what the ignorant think, the whole point of education is to teach people what the people who are actually knowledgable about a subject think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-05-2004 10:23 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 73 (90516)
03-05-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Servant2thecause
03-05-2004 10:23 AM


beliefs
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).
The controversy is generated by individuals and organizations who don't understand the science and/or lie about it.
I know some people who have held to the idea of "equal time" in the science classrooms. Some of those, when exposed to what the creationists actually want realize that there is no equal time deserved.
Personally, I would love to see creationism studied in the science classroom. We have discussed that in other threads. If that was done in just the places where there is the most vocal crying out for it then there outcrys would really get loud! Creationism, if examined in a science classroom carefully, would get ripped to shreads. Observe how, on this forum, creastionists run from the detailed difficult questions about the age of the earth, the flood and the evidence for evolution. We haven't had a creationist take on the dates and dating forum for some weeks now.
They spend weeks arguing in the faith and belief forums though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-05-2004 10:23 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 73 (90519)
03-05-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


quote:
To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why?
No. People are free to believe what they want, nothing wrong with that. That is one of the greatest parts about a areligious democracy, you are free to practice any theology you want. However, this right does not extend to the state. The state is not allowed to establish a state religion, something that many fundamentalists want to do. They argue that fundamentalist christianity will bring morals and integrity back to the nation. A lofty goal, but it is the implementation that many have a problem with.
quote:
After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
Open-mindedness in a science classroom, or science in general, deals with competing theories that are both based in observable data. Since creationism is not based on testable hypotheses, or falsified hypotheses in the case of young earth creationism, it does not qualify. One example of a theory that could be taught side by side with evolution in a science classroom is Symbiosis Theory (which has been discussed in other threads). Otherwise, young earth creationism could be taught in relation to Lamarckism, Spontaneous Generation, and other falsified theories.
Plus, the science classroom shouldn't be a place to test the validity of one religious text over others, being that we are a nation of multiple religions. Also, if you really want your children taught about creationism, nothing is stopping parents from doing this at home. This is perhaps the best place for it, since parents can also teach them about their faith and instruct them on everyday life at the same time. Parents already help their children with homework, I don't see why this can't be added on as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 73 (90540)
03-05-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Servant2thecause
03-05-2004 10:23 AM


Re: Interestting...
Actually, the U.S. Constitution disallows, in the first amendment, "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." but it DOES NOT prohibit teachers from taking class time to discuss alternatives to the evolution theory.
True. However, there are no scientific, unfalsified, non-religious alternatives to discuss. Check back when you have one.
By the way, in 1980 the supreme court ruled that the law forbids states to REQUIRE the teaching of creation, but it does not forbid the teaching of creation either. check the lawbooks.
Reference please? The classic cases in this controversy are McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas, Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Daniel v. Waters, Wright v. Houston I.S.D.; none of these were in 1980. And please quote the portion of whatever decision you mean that you think "does not forbid the teaching of creation either."
The decision closest in time to 1980 is McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, in 1982. The ruling was pretty clear that "creation science" failed the Lemon test decisively and is therefore religion, and the Court made it clear that "creation science" would have to change a lot before it could pass the Lemon test:
quote:
The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism (22) which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. ... Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because "creation-science" as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics.
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy
Because a few religious cranks are attempting to foist their religion on the general public. Although many people in the U.S. believe in somthing vaguely like creationism, those that really want it taught in the classroom are a small but vocal minority.
in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom
Well, I'll accept your assertion ... but how many said that we should teach "creation science" in the classsroom, and exactly how were the questions worded? Not objecting is different from supporting.
But it's moot, anyway; both science and Constitutional interpretations are not the result of public debate. Another quote from McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education is relevant:
quote:
The defendants presented Dr. Larry Parker, a specialist in devising curricula for public schools. He testified that the public school's curriculum should reflect the subjects the public wants in schools. The witness said that polls indicated a significant majority of the American public thought creation science should be taught if evolution was taught. The point of this testimony was never placed in a legal context. No doubt a sizeable majority of Americans believe in the concept of a Creator or, at least, are not opposed to the concept and see nothing wrong with teaching school children the idea.
The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.
So, until "creation science" becomes science rather than dogmatic religion, it will not be taught in U.S. public schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-05-2004 10:23 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 14 of 73 (90601)
03-05-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


booboocruise writes:
To the creationists: If the creation movement is to prevail, why are you all caught up in disagreement and conflict amongst yourselves? Truly, the creation movement would most definitely make a stronger impact on the world of education if all the creationists out there could humble themselves to the point where they set aside their MINOR differences and focus on what's most important to them: that God created the universe and Christ died for all who sinned. Please elaborate on your answers.
It's not about impact, it's about truth. Until now the evolutionists seem to be more hunting for the truth than the creationists on this site.
Maybe you want to change that? I suggest a new topic on the case of the distribution of olfatory (pseudo)genes in human and monkey lineages for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 12:53 AM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 73 (90719)
03-06-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Saviourmachine
03-05-2004 3:44 PM


First off, Jesus said in Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and say all manner of evil against you for my sake, for great is your reward in heaven." Therefore, you might as well save the time and energy it takes to pour your ignorance and arrogant insults into your replies, because all i'm going to do with them is ignore them and thank God in prayer that he is giving me the strength to put up with people like yourselves. Truly, the most ignorant, arrogant, and prideful people I have ever met are Darwinsists, namely the people on this particular site.
Now then, can we get back to the topic?
Evolution, as even admitted by Gould, Darwin, Asimov, and many other evolutionists, is nothing more than a theory. It is unproved. Honestly, neither Biblical creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism can be proven by science ("Science" = knowledge through demonstrated evidence and observation). Therefore, if any evolutionist, atheist, or otherwise anti-creationist has an ounce of honesty and integrity, he would freely admit that BOTH viewpoints have to be taken by faith.
After all, with all other points thrown aside, there is no other way that i can think of to say it: Darwinian evolution (origin of life from nonliving matter and progression from simpler to more complex organisms) has never been proven. in fact, the Miller experiment (I'm POSITIVE you have heard of it) only proved that life cannot be created in the presence of oxygen (or else it would oxidize and self-destruct).
In stead of waving an arrogant finger at creationists and demanding that they "prove" their theory before they can teach it, why don't you get down off your platform and try to prove YOUR OWN theory beyond a reasonable doubt (by the way, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means creating an argument that cannot be refutted with even our BEST understanding of science).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-05-2004 3:44 PM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 1:02 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2004 1:03 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 03-07-2004 8:05 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 61 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-08-2004 5:12 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024