Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 22 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 211

Thread: Wow!!! Creationism on the move in schools; from PA to CA...

  1. -1
    Wildbill3's Avatar
    Misery Loves Company

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2001
    Posts:
    24,992
    vCash:
    2949
    Loc:
    Kentucky
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Rebel AllianceSuperman logoXbox LogoPlaystation LogoSnakes!

    Wow!!! Creationism on the move in schools; from PA to CA...

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/07....ap/index.html

    "I allow them to be creative thinkers, because that's what we're driving the kids to do -- be intelligent, analytical thinkers," said Marroquin, who teaches at Downey High School in a southern California district she describes as conservative. Yet evolution is a key part of California science standards, and she tells students they must learn it even if they don't like it, because "they've got to live in the real world."
    In rural Pennsylvania, a school board has ordered that biology students hear about a competing theory of life called "intelligent design," prompting a court fight. In a Georgia county, officials placed disclaimers about evolution on text books before a judge overruled the move. In Kansas, officials may alter science standards to step up the criticism of evolution.

    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    SkapePhin's Avatar
    Brady Slayer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    19,290
    vCash:
    22188
    Loc:
    Washington DC
    Thanks / No Thanks


    Honestly, I dont want to ruffle any feathers of people here, but creationism is not a science.. It is not in keeping with the scientific method..

    I dont care if a teacher wants to mention it in passing as a theory, but to teach it as a SCIENTIFIC theory is absurd...
    FIRE FAILBIN
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Jimmy James's Avatar
    You sit on a throne of lies!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2003
    Posts:
    21,735
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Southside Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by SkapePhin


    Honestly, I dont want to ruffle any feathers of people here, but creationism is not a science.. It is not in keeping with the scientific method..

    I dont care if a teacher wants to mention it in passing as a theory, but to teach it as a SCIENTIFIC theory is absurd...
    I'll go a step forward and a step back from that: I think in this country with a large Christian population and a melange of other belief systems, it would really only be appropriate to start the discussion with a discussion of just what scientific theory is and how that differs from *all* religious/metaphysical beliefs. I know there's a lot of good stuff out there from scientists on the subject, and I think maybe a good 20 minute subunit in that area with a reading might go a long way toward unruffling a lot of feathers about the subject. Kids should know it's okay to believe what they believe in along with the fact that evolution *is* science and is darn important no matter whether you want to become a scientist, a theologan, or whatever else. After all, I would hope that every person trying to advance a competing explanation would want to possess knowledge about the subject.




    I've got so many lawyers lined up to see me, you'd think I had tobacco leaking out of my breast implants.
    - Jimmy James
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Dolphan7's Avatar
    Desert Dolphin

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    16,492
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Tucson, Arizona
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy James
    I'll go a step forward and a step back from that: I think in this country with a large Christian population and a melange of other belief systems, it would really only be appropriate to start the discussion with a discussion of just what scientific theory is and how that differs from *all* religious/metaphysical beliefs. I know there's a lot of good stuff out there from scientists on the subject, and I think maybe a good 20 minute subunit in that area with a reading might go a long way toward unruffling a lot of feathers about the subject. Kids should know it's okay to believe what they believe in along with the fact that evolution *is* science and is darn important no matter whether you want to become a scientist, a theologan, or whatever else. After all, I would hope that every person trying to advance a competing explanation would want to possess knowledge about the subject.
    Here is where creationists such as myself get up in arms over. Evolution is not science. It uses scientific methods to support a presupposed belief system that attempts to answer the age old question "How did we get here?", but it is not science just by itself. Furthermore it is taught as fact, when in fact it is still just a theory, one that cannot be proven by the very scientific methods it purports to be part of.

    Creationism isn't science either, but just like evolution, uses scientific methods to support it's belief system, that attempts to answer the age old question "How did we get here?". Scientific experiments can only show one result, one set of facts, yet based on which camp you are in the conclusions are widely different. Let the student decide which side makes the best explanation of the facts/data.

    All creationists want is a level and fair playing field when it comes to the education of our children.

    Players come and go, but I will always be a Miami Dolphins Fan first and foremost.




    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    spydertl79's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    8,807
    vCash:
    1224
    Loc:
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphan7
    Here is where creationists such as myself get up in arms over. Evolution is not science. It uses scientific methods to support a presupposed belief system that attempts to answer the age old question "How did we get here?", but it is not science just by itself. Furthermore it is taught as fact, when in fact it is still just a theory, one that cannot be proven by the very scientific methods it purports to be part of.

    Creationism isn't science either, but just like evolution, uses scientific methods to support it's belief system, that attempts to answer the age old question "How did we get here?". Scientific experiments can only show one result, one set of facts, yet based on which camp you are in the conclusions are widely different. Let the student decide which side makes the best explanation of the facts/data.

    All creationists want is a level and fair playing field when it comes to the education of our children.
    Things evolve, that is taught as a fact. Humans evolving from "lower" primates is NOT TAUGHT AS A FACT. Creationism does not use the scientific method to support it.
    "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
    Henry Wheeler Shaw
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Jimmy James's Avatar
    You sit on a throne of lies!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2003
    Posts:
    21,735
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Southside Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by spydertl79
    Things evolve, that is taught as a fact. Humans evolving from "lower" primates is NOT TAUGHT AS A FACT. Creationism does not use the scientific method to support it.
    Exactly. In fact, the whole point of the scientific method is to suggest that we should be at least somewhat skeptical of that explanation pending the introduction of more evidence (that evidence may never become available, of course). The same would be true of something like the big bang. Science is based upon recorded first hand observations of scientists that can be reproduced and that are vetted by the science community. I can tell you that it's fact that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s^2. I can tell you about the theory of gravity and the current status of how we think that comes about (if I actually remembered what I knew at one point and understood the things I never knew).
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Dolphan7's Avatar
    Desert Dolphin

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    16,492
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Tucson, Arizona
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by spydertl79
    Things evolve, that is taught as a fact. Humans evolving from "lower" primates is NOT TAUGHT AS A FACT. Creationism does not use the scientific method to support it.
    Creationism uses science. Experiments have results or facts. What model do the results support? Depends on the scientists interpretation of those facts. This is how both creationism and evolution use science.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Dolphan7's Avatar
    Desert Dolphin

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    16,492
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Tucson, Arizona
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy James
    Exactly. In fact, the whole point of the scientific method is to suggest that we should be at least somewhat skeptical of that explanation pending the introduction of more evidence (that evidence may never become available, of course). The same would be true of something like the big bang. Science is based upon recorded first hand observations of scientists that can be reproduced and that are vetted by the science community. I can tell you that it's fact that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s^2. I can tell you about the theory of gravity and the current status of how we think that comes about (if I actually remembered what I knew at one point and understood the things I never knew).
    Sure that works with things that are physical and in motion. But not with life evolving over time. They call it a theory, but it is one that can't be observed, not like gravity or motion/speed etc....or chemical reactions.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Jimmy James's Avatar
    You sit on a throne of lies!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2003
    Posts:
    21,735
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Southside Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphan7
    Sure that works with things that are physical and in motion. But not with life evolving over time. They call it a theory, but it is one that can't be observed, not like gravity or motion/speed etc....or chemical reactions.
    It's like the Big Bang theory. Of course they can't be observed in motion. We're humans -- if the theory is correct, we didn't exist prior to when the evolution began. Similarly, we are tangible objects, and tangible objects didn't exist before the Big Bang if that theory is correct.

    There is a reason the word isn't "fact" and that the word isn't "speculation" or "belief".

    As to "Creation Science" and/or "Intelligent Design", I align myself with the legitimate scientific community because I know it is filled with skeptics willing to move to a new theory any time one proves to be superior instead of a community I know is bankrolled by the likes of Jerry Falwell (via Liberty University) because I strongly believe he has an agenda that does not provide for the same devotion to principle over the result he's looking for. I'm faced with two alternatives: believe that the scientific community has it out for Christians and is standing in the way of advancement of their stated goals just out of spite or believe that the reason these theories are not competitive for grants and other funding outside the Religious Right is because they don't pass muster. Common sense provides me with the answer I choose.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    Dolphan7's Avatar
    Desert Dolphin

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    16,492
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Tucson, Arizona
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy James
    It's like the Big Bang theory. Of course they can't be observed in motion. We're humans -- if the theory is correct, we didn't exist prior to when the evolution began. Similarly, we are tangible objects, and tangible objects didn't exist before the Big Bang if that theory is correct.

    There is a reason the word isn't "fact" and that the word isn't "speculation" or "belief".

    As to "Creation Science" and/or "Intelligent Design", I align myself with the legitimate scientific community because I know it is filled with skeptics willing to move to a new theory any time one proves to be superior instead of a community I know is bankrolled by the likes of Jerry Falwell (via Liberty University) because I strongly believe he has an agenda that does not provide for the same devotion to principle over the result he's looking for. I'm faced with two alternatives: believe that the scientific community has it out for Christians and is standing in the way of advancement of their stated goals just out of spite or believe that the reason these theories are not competitive for grants and other funding outside the Religious Right is because they don't pass muster. Common sense provides me with the answer I choose.
    Well you wouldn't be the first person to say the creation scientists aren't "real scientists". It's a cheap shot. Jerry Falwell, as great a evangelical christian as he may be, isn't a scientist. So to compare him to the scientists of evolution is like comparing a pop warner team to the Pros. And all creation science isn't funded by him. Creation science has one theory - God created everything. They won't change that from one year to the next like your guys.

    You bring up a great point. Can creation science pass muster? I say it does, but that's just little 'ol me. Let's give it a chance. It is my belief that it is the greater scientific community, from all the advanced research institutes down to the colleges and universities that do indeed keep creation science out of the limelight. Reason? If a scientists wants to get funding, which theory do you think would get him those funds? Follow the money, man.

    Do you know any creation scientists? Have you ever met or spoken with one?

    Would you bet your life on your common sense choice here?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 213
    Last Post: 12-28-2012, 08:51 PM
  2. Creationism (sorry)
    By ABrownLamp in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:03 PM
  3. creationism in our schools
    By Alien in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  4. Another marriage: Evolution and Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 05:59 PM
  5. Victory for Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •