Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Linda

 

An interesting definition of "Real Christians".

 

Personally I would believe that a Real Christian would be a follower of Jesus Christ. To the best of my knowledge he didn't mention Adam and Eve, or Creation. Also he never encouraged his followers to read, or believe in the bible (Old Testament).

Well let's make the "best of (your) knowledge" better. First remember that the "OT" was referred to as the "Law".

 

Matthew 5 17-19: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

As evidence, may I point out that he even rejected the 10 commandments, replacing them with 2. Further he replaced the Old Testament's "Eye for an eye" with "Turn the other cheek".

 

Are there contradiction is the bible? Ya, its filled with them. Including whether it's mythical Jesus supported or changed Jewish Law.

 

But based on this passage, there is no question about it's Jesus specifically saying he fully supported the OT and ALL of it's laws. And in fact warned that anyone saying otherwise would be punished.

 

Just more Christian hypocracy

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

I'm not sure what you mean by devout Jew. Jesus was a jew, and he was Devout, but does that make him a devout Jew? I think not. His version of religion was heresy to the Jews. They did not accept him then, and they do not accept him now.

I always find it amazing when people discuss what someone WAS when there isn't any facts to support that that person even existed.

 

Just how tall was this person that very likely didn't even exist? Do we just make it up, like the various picts we see of "Jesus", and call it the truth? Are we Christians and thus so willing to reject facts and evidence?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Linda (and Blame), let's take the "real Christians" debate out of this topic. Start a new topic for it if you want to pursue it. this thread is getting too diverse.

 

Tormod

Ops. Perhaps I should follow the thread backawrds, rather then trying to catch up linearly from where I left off!

 

Sorry!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

This thread is about why Creationism is being taught in US schools. (Right?) The reason is directly related to Christianity

Oh man, would I be catching it if I said that!

 

We ahve been told over and ove3r by the head mistress here that Christianity has nothing to do with ANY topic! Even Christian ones!

 

Or is that only when *I* bring it up?

The Adam and Eve (original sin) story is central. As a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, it's the main reason to reject evolution.

Yes, this is central to their panic battle against Evolution. If there was no specific first human created fully evolved, then it was an arbitrary random selection point at which ensoulment was foisted on the first unsuspecting animal. And it then requires a physically identifyable difference between the continuation of unsouled animals and souled Humans and thus a physically identifyable rubric to the soul.

[lindagarrette]

FT, I think Tormod was complaining about our arguing over the definition of "real Christian" which was probably a misnomer on my part.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

We have been told over and over by the head mistress here that Christianity has nothing to do with ANY topic! Even Christian ones!

 

Or is that only when *I* bring it up?

 

Er. I think our headmistress was the one who started this thread - and she did it just for you, old pal (or didn't you read the subtitle?). No need to attack her for it.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

FT, I think Tormod was complaining about our arguing over the definition of "real Christian" which was probably a misnomer on my part.

 

Don't get me wrong - your opinions all count. I just think this thread is really splitting up into a lot of different topics now and it would be helpful to isolate them into new threads.

[Freethinker]

Thought I'd change avitar

[Tormod]

Ha ha ha ha ha *choke* *faint* bang.

[Kevin Wirth]

I'll tell you what I think all right.

 

Another thing to think about is why creationists, especially in the western world, only wants the Genesis myth to be taught in schools as if it was science. Why not the Norse mythology as well? Could it be because they have not been raised to believe in that particular set of myths and fantasy stories? If people wish to believe in these stories, then go ahead. But keep them away from science education, and keep it away from children. It's completely unfair to attack them and make them believe all kinds of rubbish under the disguise of science. Have they no shame?

 

Let's have a mid-course correction here.

 

Most people don't feel the need to teach the 'Genesis Myth' but DO feel strongly that there is a need to examine a creation-oriented alternative. Science should be about where the evidence leads us, not a continuation of looking for ways to prove a concept we think is established. The point is that a LOT of pretty smart people think that evolution has some pretty big issues, and that there is plenty of room to dispute much of what is promoted in the name of evolution.

 

Here's what I think: Let's teach kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think. In the end, it will serve them much better. And if creation is the bunko many of the people in this forum seem to think it is, then heck, it ought to be viewed as an OPPORTUNITY for us to educate our kids about WHY it's such a bunch of baloney. Right?

 

Keeping it 'away from science education' is the head-in-the-sand approach, and it simply won't work. Students WANT to know. So, let's teach them HOW to think about it. When you deliberately take it away from them, you make them think that there's something to hide.

 

So, show them that there isn't.

B)

[Kevin Wirth]

 

When the argument is that it is necessary to teach more than one "scientific" theory then they are completely out of their league. This is a classic example of creationists and ID-followers to use "scientific methods" to claim that they teach "science" when what they have is a doctrine based on a religious opinion.

 

Um, welll....

 

Isn't it interesting that we allow the discussion of competing 'theories' about HOW the evolution of this or that took place, but we don't seem to have room to allow any similar type of discussion about the main premise, evolution itself.

 

And, let's clarify your statement about 'doctrine based on a religious opinion'

 

The 'doctrine' as you call it should not be dismissed simply because it is CONSISTENT with any religious idea. We can all agree that the facts and evidence are going to remain the same - it's just that when the evidence cannot be adequately explained using evolutionary assumptions - why NOT take a look at alternative assumptions that are every bit as reasonable (while still keeping our distance from 'religion')?

 

It IS possible to do this. And, I see nothing wrong with it. It can only strengthen a student's ability to reason. And THAT is the value they will come away with.

[Stargazer]

Let's have a mid-course correction here.

 

Most people don't feel the need to teach the 'Genesis Myth' but DO feel strongly that there is a need to examine a creation-oriented alternative. Science should be about where the evidence leads us, not a continuation of looking for ways to prove a concept we think is established.

Exactly - and since there's no evidence for creation by any god, and since these ideas are based on old myths, it's not science.

 

The point is that a LOT of pretty smart people think that evolution has some pretty big issues, and that there is plenty of room to dispute much of what is promoted in the name of evolution.

Who are these people? Do these smart people also think that creationism (any kind) have fewer holes than the theory of evolution? No one said the theory of evolution is perfect, as it will never be.

 

Here's what I think: Let's teach kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

I agree that we should teach them how to think. Especially how the scientific method works, and why it is different from pseudoscience and religion. When it comes to science education, we should teach them the best and most wellfounded theories. This is not about being fair and balanced and give equal time and such. It's about proper science education. You can't just say "I don't believe it because I decided not to believe it." Well, of course you could say it, but it wouldn't be too smart.

 

In the end, it will serve them much better. And if creation is the bunko many of the people in this forum seem to think it is, then heck, it ought to be viewed as an OPPORTUNITY for us to educate our kids about WHY it's such a bunch of baloney. Right?

Absolutely. In science education we should make sure to include how the scientific methods work, what the words fact, theory, hypothesis and such really means. Maybe this will at least give them an idea why creationism and other religions are not science, and why they shouldn't use certain "arguments" such as "evolution is a theory, not a fact," which is complete rubbish. Of course it's a theory. A theory is formed to explain certain facts. If the creationists have better theories to explain these same facts and still conform to the Ockham's razor, then by all means present that theory. Alas, it seems like they never want to do that. All they do is to lie, consciously or not. It's also such a good theory that some refers to it as fact, or at least as close they can come to it. Evolution is not disputed terribly much, since it's so well-supported. What people do dispute about is the details.

 

Keeping it 'away from science education' is the head-in-the-sand approach, and it simply won't work. Students WANT to know. So, let's teach them HOW to think about it. When you deliberately take it away from them, you make them think that there's something to hide.

 

So, show them that there isn't.

B)

There's nothing to hide. We should bring out pseudoscience and similar rubbish out in the light of day, because they wouldn't survive. Actually, they are already dead and long gone. But since it's not proper science, it should not be taught as alternatives in science class. That's simply how it is. There's no head-in-the-sand here. The only ones who use that tactic is the creationists, especially when they are asked to present evidence. But mostly it seems they have as much evidence as they have knowledge about the subject.

[Tormod]

I see that Sanctus has replied but I'll hop in, too.

 

Let's have a mid-course correction here.

 

You mean let us allow your opinion to be voiced. Of course. Welcome. B)

 

Most people don't feel the need to teach the 'Genesis Myth' but DO feel strongly that there is a need to examine a creation-oriented alternative.

 

Define "most people". I know almost no people who feel a need to examine a creation-oriented alternative. Either they believe in creation or they don't. It is rather dogmatic for them.

 

Science should be about where the evidence leads us, not a continuation of looking for ways to prove a concept we think is established.

 

May I please remind you that you are posting in a science forum? For most of us, science is about questioning the established concepts by studying, formulating theories, and question them. The scientific method places strong restrictions on how this process should happen, how evidence is found, how it is backed up and proved/falsified.

 

The point is that a LOT of pretty smart people think that evolution has some pretty big issues, and that there is plenty of room to dispute much of what is promoted in the name of evolution.

 

Indeed. I only wish these pretty smart people would use scientific methods and post their results as verifiable reports, rather than blast into public forums yelling about the fallacies of evolution (like yourself - you fail to mention what your problem is).

 

Here's what I think: Let's teach kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think. In the end, it will serve them much better.

 

Yes. Stargazer replied wonderfully to this above.

 

Students WANT to know. So, let's teach them HOW to think about it. When you deliberately take it away from them, you make them think that there's something to hide.

 

Interesting point of view. In fact, my point of view is the exact opposite: When you force teachers to waste their time teaching religious views in class, you take away valuable time which could be spent teaching the kids to learn how the scientific methods work, and then apply those to creationism.

 

In the US, the church and state is separated (at least in theory). Why on earth should anyone want to bring religion into the schools when a lot of the population is not religious - or have non-Christian views? I assume of course that if you want creationism to be taught, that it would cover equally much the creationism theories in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions as well? And of course you will want to teach the atheist view, too. Or else - are you saying that the Christian version of creationism is better than all the others?

 

There is a huge difference between teaching creationism and studying it.

 

You might be interested in knowing that in Norway, they teach both evolution and creationism. Evolution is taught in science classes, creationism in Christianity classes. Just to make sure the kids have no clue what to think. It's plain stupid, really - in one class you learn how life evolved, in the next you learn that it didn't.

 

So, show them that there isn't.

B)

 

Show them that what isn't? Anything in the Christian religion that cannot be proved? They'd have time for little else. But don't worry - you can still teach your kids anything you want at home. :)

[Freethinker]

Let's have a mid-course correction here.

More of a return to the same empty claims than a course correction, but...

 

Most people don't feel the need to teach the 'Genesis Myth' but DO feel strongly that there is a need to examine a creation-oriented alternative. Science should be about where the evidence leads us, not a continuation of looking for ways to prove a concept we think is established.

OK, you just contradicted yourself.

 

Evolution IS "where the evidence leads us".

 

Creation mythology IS "a continuation of looking for ways to prove a concept we think is established". And ID is nothing but it's latest effort to cram it down people's throats (or minds).

The point is that a LOT of pretty smart people think that evolution has some pretty big issues,

Smart? Perhaps. They just don't have any standing in any field related to Biological Science. Einstein was SMART. But woould not have any sceintific standing in the area of Evolution. It was not his field of endevor. William F. Buckley is smart and he supported Creationism in a debate a few years ago. His given reason was that being a "Good Catholic" there are points at which he must surrender intellect to dogma.

 

And yes even Evolutionary Biologists have issues with Evolution. Especially strict Darwinian. So what? That is what Science is all about. Always testing, always challenging held Theories. Meanwhile ALL credible directly related scientists support the Theory of Evolution.

and that there is plenty of room to dispute much of what is promoted in the name of evolution.

There is ALWAYS room to dispute ANY scientific findings, that IS what science IS. But the only thing PROMOTED in the "name of evolution" is the fallacies of the Creationists. Falsely trying to connect it to all kinds of attrocities and social complications.

Here's what I think: Let's teach kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

Yes. let's not teach that 2=2+4. let's spend years forcing each student to find it out for themselves. And that nasty Gravity Theory. Let's let each student start from scratch to see if all come up with the same acceleration for G. Or even that it exists. Oh ya and the round Earth thing!

And if creation is the bunko many of the people in this forum seem to think it is, then heck, it ought to be viewed as an OPPORTUNITY for us to educate our kids about WHY it's such a bunch of baloney. Right?

Yep, there are only a couple hundered different Creation claims from various religions. It should only take a few years to get thru each so by the time a student gets to Senior, if they started in Middle School, they might have spent enough time in Biology to get to some other aspect of the class. What an opportunity to WASTE YEARS of Biology Class learning nothing more than Creation IS NOT SCIENCE no matter what form is looked at. Hopefully a few will stick it out long enough to find out what Biology IS about.

Keeping it 'away from science education' is the head-in-the-sand approach, and it simply won't work. Students WANT to know. So, let's teach them HOW to think about it. When you deliberately take it away from them, you make them think that there's something to hide.

bottom line CREATION in ALL forms is NOT Science. It has no place in SCIENCE education. Evolution is not taught because of some attempt to deconvert Christians as is claimed by the mindless Creationists. It is taught because it reflects the largest single area of consensus within ALL of Science. And because nothing in biology makes any sense without Evolution at it's basis. Evolution is a cornerstone not only in Biology, but in how Science itself works.

[Freethinker]

Isn't it interesting that we allow the discussion of competing 'theories' about HOW the evolution of this or that took place, but we don't seem to have room to allow any similar type of discussion about the main premise, evolution itself.

By the mere process of teaching WHAT evolution IS and how Science developed it's Theory based on observations we ARE discussing IF Evolution took place. Maybe if you actually bothered to stay current with the subject you would not make such obvious errors. Just a few days ago a NEW concept of Human Evolution was released. One that shows how findings suggest that the ability to run fast was one of the evoutionary factors in our upright gate. That is the conclusion of a study published in the journal Nature by University of Utah biologist Dennis Bramble and Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman. This shows, not only a new process of Evolution, but new SUPPORT FOR "evolution itself".

The 'doctrine' as you call it should not be dismissed simply because it is CONSISTENT with any religious idea. We can all agree that the facts and evidence are going to remain the same - it's just that when the evidence cannot be adequately explained using evolutionary assumptions - why NOT take a look at alternative assumptions that are every bit as reasonable (while still keeping our distance from 'religion')?

Creationism is not rejected because "it is CONSISTENT with any religious idea". It is rejected because it is NOT SCIENCE. "God happens" does not express ANY Scientific process. It has no verifyable events connected to it. It has no falsefyablity. It has no predictive value. Using a "reasonable" approach to Science REQUIRES rejection of such completely ANTI-scientific approaches.

 

If you had any undertanding of Science, you would understand this.

It IS possible to do this. And, I see nothing wrong with it. It can only strengthen a student's ability to reason. And THAT is the value they will come away with.

And further, what you completely ignore is the FACT that the majority of educators ARE Christians in the US. To claim they are intentionally teaching AGAINST their own philosophy is absurd and unsupportable. To further suggest that the shcool system would intentionally structure a class that WOULD DIRECTLY CHALLENGE the bible and ACTIVELY disprove it is rediculous. As good of a thing as that would be, the majority of people in education being Christians, would stop any such effort to a fair and even handed evaluation of Christian ideology.

[Freethinker]

Define "most people".

This is the typical uneducated approach. Make unsupported claims and pretend it means something of value. They will make claims of how many people reject Evolution but the list is never supplied. Or if it is, none on the list have any credibility on the issue.

 

But they will use that old line to convince each other. They have no desire to use reason or a rational approach. Facts and logic do not help their case any.

[RJGabriele]

I am new to these boards and hope to visit regularly as I see a huge volume of thought provoking subjects I am interested in learning more about.

 

Anyway...I have a question about evolution and thought I'd toss it in and see what comes out of it. If it's been posted on before elsewhere, please disreguard.

 

If humans are derived, evolved, from primates, why are they still primates? Meaning, why aren't there other versions of humans? If we came from other apes and such, why are they still around and not as advanced as us?

 

goofy? I know....just wondering what you think ?