Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Creationism in Private Schools


  • Please log in to reply
226 replies to this topic

#136 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:33 PM

And no matter how much you do that, it doesn't disprove the existence or validity of alternate theories and interpretations.

Feel free to keep trying though.

Again though, those things are open to interpretation.

Bottom line for me: I'm not up for public schools teaching religion, but they also shouldn't discount, deny or suppress it.

Acknowledge the other theories (call them 'alternate explanations' if you prefer) and I'm happy.


What things are open to interpretation? Please be specific. The general terms that students learn about evolution, the big bang, etc in high school are really not going to be overturned at this point. There's just too much evidence in favor of them. The likelihood is extremely small, and by virtue of the teaching of the scientific method they receive, they hopefully understand the method by which some of these conclusions have been drawn and also understand the process.

On the other hand, SPECIFIC examples may change, may come about, etc... but ultimately the more research we do, the more we find support for scientific theories, not alternative explanations.

Science classes already end up acknowledging that there are religious beliefs in the arena of how life got started etc, but what most creationism advocates want is something MUCH MORE than what you are suggesting, you do realize that, right?


Like I said previously, look it up. Not that any of it's going to matter.

This whole debate is pretty much a colossal waste of time. Nobody's going to change their mind.


I have tried looking it up and I have found no alternative interpretations for evolution that have any modern scientific backing. Please, if you have some, please share, or at least offer some sort of example even roughly in what we should be looking for.

Else we end up with bullshit like the OP - Dinosaurs exist, evolution is fake!!!!

#137 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,433 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:36 PM

What things are open to interpretation? Please be specific. The general terms that students learn about evolution, the big bang, etc in high school are really not going to be overturned at this point. There's just too much evidence in favor of them. The likelihood is extremely small.

On the other hand, SPECIFIC examples may change, may come about, etc... but ultimately the more research we do, the more we find support for scientific theories, not alternative explanations.

Science classes already end up acknowledging that there are religious beliefs in the arena of how life got started etc, but what most creationism advocates want is something MUCH MORE than what you are suggesting, you do realize that, right?


I'm only defending my particular idea. I said elsewhere that I can't speak for others.

But in the same vein, you do realize there are quite a few people out there who want any and all references to any religious ideas completely eradicated, ignored or ridiculed in the educational arena, right?

#138 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,433 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:41 PM

I have tried looking it up and I have found no alternative interpretations for evolution that have any modern scientific backing. Please, if you have some, please share, or at least offer some sort of example even roughly in what we should be looking for.


If I took the time to do so, would you accept any of them as legit?

(be honest)

That's why this sort of thing is a waste of time.

I jumped into the debate because I had a wild hair. Now I remember why I generally don't bother with this forum. It's a lot of typing for essentially nothing accomplished on either side.

#139 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:42 PM

I'm only defending my particular idea. I said elsewhere that I can't speak for others.

But in the same vein, you do realize there are quite a few people out there who want any and all references to any religious ideas completely eradicated, ignored or ridiculed in the educational arena, right?


Ridiculed is different than ignored. There are some undoubtedly who want them ridiculed but they are in the vast minority. Most simply want specific religious ideas ignored in science classes, or public school not specifically dedicated to religious discussions/topics. I don't think beliefs should be ridiculed in school but they also should be generally avoided, and science classes are absolutely not the place for religious belief systems.


It seems to me you are basically advocating what is already the case, mixed in with some lack of understanding apparently due to miseducation by some people in the past relating to the strength of evidence RE: creationism & ID.

#140 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,728 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:43 PM

Quit calling creationism a theory. It isn't a theory. It does not have a single shred of evidence. People do believe it. So fuging what? Why should science teachers explain that some people believe in NON-scientific things in a SCIENCE class? You keep saying theory, Scot, and I don't think that word means what you think it means. Theory in science =/= layman's theory. If there were alternatives, those would be discussed. As it is, there aren't any, and there DAMN sure isn't one in creationism.

Why not tell kids in history class that some people believe the holocaust never happened? Why not tell kids that some people believe that blue is actually green and that yellow is actually red? Because that is exactly what you are positing with "why not say that some people don't believe it and believe in myths?" type of statements.

#141 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,433 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:45 PM

Quit calling creationism a theory. It isn't a theory. It does not have a single shred of evidence. People do believe it. So fuging what? Why should science teachers explain that some people believe in NON-scientific things in a SCIENCE class? You keep saying theory, Scot, and I don't think that word means what you think it means. Theory in science =/= layman's theory. If there were alternatives, those would be discussed. As it is, there aren't any, and there DAMN sure isn't one in creationism.

Why not tell kids in history class that some people believe the holocaust never happened? Why not tell kids that some people believe that blue is actually green and that yellow is actually red? Because that is exactly what you are positing with "why not say that some people don't believe it and believe in myths?" type of statements.


Already covered in prior posts.

Ridiculed is different than ignored. There are some undoubtedly who want them ridiculed but they are in the vast minority. Most simply want specific religious ideas ignored in science classes, or public school not specifically dedicated to religious discussions/topics. I don't think beliefs should be ridiculed in school but they also should be generally avoided, and science classes are absolutely not the place for religious belief systems.

It seems to me you are basically advocating what is already the case, mixed in with some lack of understanding apparently due to miseducation by some people in the past relating to the strength of evidence RE: creationism & ID.


More to do with a lot of what I see in news concerning the debate itself.

#142 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:46 PM

If I took the time to do so, would you accept any of them as legit?

(be honest)

That's why this sort of thing is a waste of time.


There are none, but you may find some supposed examples, and you'll get detailed rebuttals as to why they are not good examples elsewhere. You will not find any real alternatives to evolution that have not already been totally and completely torn to pieces because they lack true scientific backing. But, I encourage you to look around - if you find something you feel is convincing, we can talk about it. I get heated sometimes but I try to respect posters, and the fact that many of them do not have access to the kind of tools I have to examine these questions.

If you truly think you can find some alternative interpretations and would like to see my responses to them, go for it. I've had many debates relating to evolution & creationism before, so I'm fine with the discussion. I'd prefer to stay away from the Big Bang because I am not a physicist, I am a biologist.

#143 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,433 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:51 PM

There are none, but you may find some supposed examples, and you'll get detailed rebuttals as to why they are not good examples elsewhere. You will not find any real alternatives to evolution that have not already been totally and completely torn to pieces because they lack true scientific backing. But, I encourage you to look around - if you find something you feel is convincing, we can talk about it. I get heated sometimes but I try to respect posters, and the fact that many of them do not have access to the kind of tools I have to examine these questions.

If you truly think you can find some alternative interpretations and would like to see my responses to them, go for it. I've had many debates relating to evolution & creationism before, so I'm fine with the discussion. I'd prefer to stay away from the Big Bang because I am not a physicist, I am a biologist.


Long way of saying "No, it wouldn't change my mind."

There are biologists - and other scientists - who believe in intelligent design. You don't. And I doubt debating any of them who "have access to the same tools you do" would convince you to think otherwise. And obviously, you're not going to dissuade me from my beliefs either.

See why i say this is a waste of time in this format?

#144 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:58 PM

Long way of saying "No, it wouldn't change my mind."

There are biologists - and other scientists - who believe in intelligent design. You don't. And I doubt debating any of them who "have access to the same tools you do" would convince you to think otherwise. And obviously, you're not going to dissuade me from my beliefs either.

See why i say this is a waste of time in this format?


I'd change my mind if you found something I couldn't refute... but you likely won't, because if the evidence was out there a major journal would have spat it out and it'd be a major research topic, it'd be a discussion at my lunches with my colleagues etc... but there hasn't been a major challenge to "evolution" in a hell of a long time because there just isn't anything to really disagree with.

now, if you want to talk about things like the timescale, or punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism, that's the kind of debate still going on kind of, but it isn't really a question of evolution itself.

When I say the tools I do, I mean access to journals, full texts, commentary, editors letters, knowledge of how to actually FIND the scientific literature on this stuff because of what I do. This is nothing about fault to you - the average citizen simply can NOT access scientific periodicals because they are typically expensive. So when you find something, you might only find the commentary by a creationist, whereas I can find the full text and actually examine it. This came up once before, perhaps with gogodan - i don't recall for sure - and we had a useful discussion on this kind of stuff, and how sometimes scientists don't do a good job of explaining what they find in language easily understood, which can lead to misunderstandings (aka the most recent common ancestor of humans was 2k years ago vs the last common ancestor of all humans being 2k years ago).

I would certainly change my mind - and thoroughly investigate - any scientific evidence you presented. I have done so repeatedly through my life. I have spent literally hundreds of hours on this very topic. I help teach courses on this very topic, and I don't take that responsibility lightly. I'm sorry you think I wouldn't change my mind if you had sufficient evidence - I would.

But I can tell you now - whatever you find, there is a very good chance I have already seen it and I can provide you with either a more parsimonious answer or explain to you/show you some references that refute whatever it is.

#145 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:00 PM

Mr. Scot does have a point there. There are a lot of scientists who are also religious.

No, they aren't necessarily Christian or even devout (insert religion here), but this does lend credence to the train of thought that Science doesn't hold all the answers.

This is one reason I remain agnostic.

#146 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:03 PM

To play devil's advocate towards the other extreme...

What caused the big bang, where did those elements come from, and why haven't we seen similar coincidences in the 14 or so billion years since?

#147 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:03 PM

Mr. Scot does have a point there. There are a lot of scientists who are also religious.

No, they aren't necessarily Christian or even devout (insert religion here), but this does lend credence to the train of thought that Science doesn't hold all the answers.

This is one reason I remain agnostic.


There is a difference between being religious, having beliefs, and believing in ID or creationism. You can think "God started it all" without believing at all that there was ID or creationism or any of that.

There are unlikely to be any evolutionary biologists who believe in the intelligent design that gained popularity in the last 20 years (aka, human eye being designed etc). There are some who believe that it is possible that abiogenesis is the result of divine intervention and that life blossomed from there, but that is something else entirely.

To play devil's advocate towards the other extreme...

What caused the big bang, where did those elements come from, and why haven't we seen similar coincidences in the 14 or so billion years since?


I don't think any scientist would tell you science has the answer to EVERYTHING right now. I think what most scientists would tell you is that through science we may be able to find the answers to those very questions.

#148 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,728 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:11 PM

Long way of saying "No, it wouldn't change my mind."

There are biologists - and other scientists - who believe in intelligent design. You don't. And I doubt debating any of them who "have access to the same tools you do" would convince you to think otherwise. And obviously, you're not going to dissuade me from my beliefs either.

See why i say this is a waste of time in this format?



You're appealing to authority here. Scientists who accept the theory of evolution have evidence on their side. Scientists who believe in intelligent design, more often than not, freely state that they are presupposing god exists. That is the exact polar opposite of science. There is no evidence of god. Creationism makes the claim that god created everything. In order to test this and make it a respectable theory and an alternative to evolution, you MUST provide evidence that god exists before you can say ANYTHING about what this god supposedly created. The fact that some scientists believe it is not what matters. A theory is only a theory when it has met the criteria of a theory.

#149 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:14 PM

Can you explain the difference in Homo Sapiens Sapiens versus other Homo family members, and their rapid evolution from a seemingly brief time frame in relation to other species?

Don't ask me, or I'll say Anunnaki...or something similar...

#150 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,728 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:14 PM

To play devil's advocate towards the other extreme...

What caused the big bang, where did those elements come from, and why haven't we seen similar coincidences in the 14 or so billion years since?



I'll answer what I can. The big bang caused itself. What caused the dense state that the universe was in at the time? Well, we don't know how that got there. All we know for certain is that it was there. You are experiencing it right now, as well as myself and the rest of the universe. The universe is ever expanding.

Of course, you know all of this. ;)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com