Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[MarineTpartier]

No, actually, they don't. Creationism was barely a hypothesis that has been soundly and completely discredited. It's not about what you want to believe, reality is what it is and anything that disagrees with reality is wrong. Reality is not up for a vote. If you stop believing in gravity, that doesn't mean gravity goes away, nor that your belief in non-gravity is at all valid.

Try again until you get it right.

^ Because that's what scientists do as well right? Here's one for you Cephus. How was the world created? In your eyes.

 

[SBu]

Which may be true, but it's not what we were talking about. Some people want to put their religious beliefs on the same plane as scientific knowledge and it just doesn't work that way.

Oh, agree with that statement. You can't prove most things in religion other than perhaps historical details. That's the whole point...it's faith. Science is not faith, it's observation largely and indisputable though theories etc. are debated revised etc. However, there are massive gaps in science and it hasn't observed or explained everything. Plenty of room for a rational religious person to swim in it. So I guess we agree?

 

[Cephus]

Oh, agree with that statement. You can't prove most things in religion other than perhaps historical details. That's the whole point...it's faith. Science is not faith, it's observation largely and indisputable though theories etc. are debated revised etc. However, there are massive gaps in science and it hasn't observed or explained everything. Plenty of room for a rational religious person to swim in it. So I guess we agree?

Faith is pointless when you're talking about reality though. We don't have faith in reality, we have direct, objective, demonstrable experience with it. Faith, especially blind faith, has absolutely no place at the table. While you are right that there are plenty of things science has no explained yet, that doesn't grant a license to just make stuff up because you feel like it.

 

[SBu]

Faith is pointless when you're talking about reality though. We don't have faith in reality, we have direct, objective, demonstrable experience with it. Faith, especially blind faith, has absolutely no place at the table. While you are right that there are plenty of things science has no explained yet, that doesn't grant a license to just make stuff up because you feel like it.

I don't think it's making stuff up. I thinks it's adapting their ideology and doctrine to fit into the modern world without compromising their religious principle...maybe just their religious rigidity. But sure, the people who interpret creation narratives literally aren't very smart. Is that what you wanted to hear? As for people that find a reasonable place for their beliefs in modern science, they don't bother me in the slightest so why not let them practice their faith without trying badgering them?

 

[Gaius46]

Actually, there is belief in scientific theories. Some scientists believe their work is accurate as opposed to others who believe their work is accurate. Not to mention other people who don't believe in evolution at all. It is a belief. Simply because you believe it doesn't mean everyone else does as well. Kinda funny how I'm the religious guy here and I'm the one having to explain to the supposedly enlightened individuals that there is more than one opinion on this earth besides the one we hold as individuals. Aren't I supposed to be the one who is stubborn and judgmental?

You're missing the point. The point isn't that you believe in a particular scientific theory. The point is that a sound scientific theory is rigorously and constantly tested and the ability to explain things we find in the world around us. You don't believe a theory - the theory proves its correctness to you. It is not an article of faith. Religion asks you to believe. Science gives you proof.

 

[Diving Mullah]

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

Texas Public Schools: Still Teaching Creationism | Mother Jones

A famous scientist and a Texan once said, anyone who has any brain left should leave Texas.... I guess the mass exodus is now Complete!

My thoughts... as long as they are into mixing Myth (religion) and Science. Why stop and creationism. They should cover all version of creationisms. From Egyptians to Sumerians, to Babylonians..to Greek and Hinduism. Actually some of these stories are far more interesting and bear to witness of human psyche than Judah-Christian version which is a ripp-off and abridged-version of Mitraism.

Wonder what they are going to do about physics and chemistry...are they also teaching the Platonism version of physics and alternate to explanation of chemistry is magical forces and alignment of cosmos and stars!!

Diving Mullah

 

[Deuce]

the vast majority of christians and jews DO NOT BELIEVE the earth is 6000 years old.only a small fringe element of young earth ceationists believe that.infact no where in the bible does it state how old the earth is.

Of this I am well aware. It's always that tiny minority that ****s things up for everyone.

 

[Deuce]

Again, as I've said a million times in this thread, I would not expect any class teaching any religions beliefs about anything to be mandatory.

I totally believe in microevolution. Macroevolution is what I have a problem with. The Bible specifically states that we did not start from an amoeba. It states a man was created by a Creator and then a woman from his rib. And that's it. There is no other interpretation that can be made of the Bible in that instance.

Your Bible is wrong. We evolved. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing.

Yes it does what? The Constitution says "separation of church and state"? I'd like for you to show me that.
Or yes it does in reference to scientific theories outweighing my faith? I can play that game. No it doesn't.

The second thing. And I don't care that you disagree. In public schools, reality will be taught. Reality doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

Actually the carbon dating methods assumed to be accurate by scientists have been called into question. And no, algebra is not against my faith. I'm sure Jesus used the same order of operations as we do.

No, the carbon dating methods have not been called into question. You were actually deliberately deceived by a supposedly Christian individual on that part. It's really sad that people would stoop to this, actually. Here's what happened:

Creationist dude gets a dinosaur fossil sent to a lab for carbon dating. Doesn't tell them what type of fossil it is. Lab responds that this isn't a good test to do for two reasons:
1) Carbon dating is limited to roughly 70,000 years, if I remember right. Might not be the exact figure, but definitely not millions of years. Because carbon decays too fast. You need different radioisotopes to measure for longer timeframes. In short, carbon dating a dinosaur fossil is like running a truck over your bathroom scale and declaring the truck weighs 350 pounds. Wrong test. (and carbon dating lab guys aren't dumb, they know the difference between a dinosaur fossil and a dodo)
2) The fossil in question had already been treated with a preservative for display in a museum, which contaminates any test.

So this test would give a meaningless result.

Creationist guy tells the lab to do it anyway, it's just for "educational purposes." So the lab does the test and comes back with 20,000 years.

Creationist guy declares to the world that those scientists just accidentally carbon dated a dinosaur fossil at 20,000 years. See, carbon dating doesn't work?

And then they told you.

 

[Deuce]

Actually, Creationism has a numerous historical books that back the "theory" of Creationism. Whatever version you want to believe in is up to the individual. Kinda like there are different theories of evolution as well as many different theories of how the world began.

Creationism isn't testable. It isn't science. Using the word "theory" to describe it in the same context you describe scientific theories is dishonest. In science, "theory" isn't a synonym for "idea." It's something with an enormous amount of data supporting it.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Creationism isn't testable. It isn't science. Using the word "theory" to describe it in the same context you describe scientific theories is dishonest. In science, "theory" isn't a synonym for "idea." It's something with an enormous amount of data supporting it.

Im aware of what a scientific theory is. I know it isn't an idea. I know it supposedly has data supporting it.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Your Bible is wrong. We evolved. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing.

Your science book is wrong. Are you and I going to play this game as well? We just call each other's beliefs wrong?

The second thing. And I don't care that you disagree. In public schools, reality will be taught. Reality doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

So what's the reality of evolution? Where did the world begin so this evolutionary chain could start? Can you answer that? I haven't found anyone that can answer that using their scientific knowledge.

No, the carbon dating methods have not been called into question. You were actually deliberately deceived by a supposedly Christian individual on that part. It's really sad that people would stoop to this, actually. Here's what happened:

Creationist dude gets a dinosaur fossil sent to a lab for carbon dating. Doesn't tell them what type of fossil it is. Lab responds that this isn't a good test to do for two reasons:
1) Carbon dating is limited to roughly 70,000 years, if I remember right. Might not be the exact figure, but definitely not millions of years. Because carbon decays too fast. You need different radioisotopes to measure for longer timeframes. In short, carbon dating a dinosaur fossil is like running a truck over your bathroom scale and declaring the truck weighs 350 pounds. Wrong test. (and carbon dating lab guys aren't dumb, they know the difference between a dinosaur fossil and a dodo)
2) The fossil in question had already been treated with a preservative for display in a museum, which contaminates any test.

So this test would give a meaningless result.

Creationist guy tells the lab to do it anyway, it's just for "educational purposes." So the lab does the test and comes back with 20,000 years.

Creationist guy declares to the world that those scientists just accidentally carbon dated a dinosaur fossil at 20,000 years. See, carbon dating doesn't work?

And then they told you.

How do you know YOU weren't deceived? Because you looked up the story I did and found one to counter it? Were you a part of this research team?

 

[Deuce]

So what's the reality of evolution? Where did the world begin so this evolutionary chain could start? Can you answer that? I haven't found anyone that can answer that using their scientific knowledge.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of the planet Earth, nor does it address how life first began. Evolution describes how life changes over time. Planets don't evolve, and life can't change over time unless life exists in the first place. Do you want to talk about abiogenesis or planetary formation instead?

How do you know YOU weren't deceived? Because you looked up the story I did and found one to counter it? Were you a part of this research team?

Carbon decay rate isn't a subject of debate. You can't carbon date a dinosaur fossil because there isn't any Carbon-14 left in it. (well, no more than background levels, but that's unnecessary detail) This is physics. It doesn't matter what story I read.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Evolution doesn't address the origin of the planet Earth, nor does it address how life first began. Do you want to talk about abiogenesis or planetary formation instead?

I asked the question, where did the world begin so the evolutionary chain could start. Can you please answer that question.

 

[Peter King]

I asked the question, where did the world begin so the evolutionary chain could start. Can you please answer that question.

The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life on the planet first originated until the present day. Earth formed about 4.5 Ga (billion years ago) and life appeared on its surface within 1 billion years. The similarities between all present-day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.

Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot longer than 6,000 years ago, that is for damned sure.

 

[MarineTpartier]

The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life on the planet first originated until the present day. Earth formed about 4.5 Ga (billion years ago) and life appeared on its surface within 1 billion years. The similarities between all present-day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.

Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot longer than 6,000 years ago, that is for damned sure.

Where did the Earth come from though? How was it created? Will you be the 3rd science advocate to all of a sudden go silent on this thread when asked that question? To be fair, the other two users may have gotten off the internet or something of that nature. However, they were active up to the point that I asked them that question then moved to other threads and disappeared.

 

[Peter King]

Where did the Earth come from though? How was it created? Will you be the 3rd science advocate to all of a sudden go silent on this thread when asked that question? To be fair, the other two users may have gotten off the internet or something of that nature. However, they were active up to the point that I asked them that question then moved to other threads and disappeared.

Who knows, I am not a scientist and I do not have a magic globe that will prove that one way or the other. Religious people may believe it was "divine intervention" and other people may think it was a fluke of nature, a result from the big bang.

Who knows, the only thing as said is that I do know that it is not 6,000 years and that the human being is the result of evolution.

Some might call it intelligent design but without any evidence that too is just a matter of belief/religion. Without evidence that is all a guessing game and I am not one to make things up, that usually is something that religions do to explain thinks they want to insert god into.

 

[year2late]

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

Texas Public Schools: Still Teaching Creationism | Mother Jones

If it is taught in the context of a science class - I give it "holy crap" status.

Now, even in liberal northern CA, middle school kids are taught a multitude of religions and their beliefs/origins - there is a difference between teaching and indoctrinating.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Who knows, I am not a scientist and I do not have a magic globe that will prove that one way or the other. Religious people may believe it was "divine intervention" and other people may think it was a fluke of nature, a result from the big bang.

Who knows, the only thing as said is that I do know that it is not 6,000 years and that the human being is the result of evolution.

Some might call it intelligent design but without any evidence that too is just a matter of belief/religion. Without evidence that is all a guessing game and I am not one to make things up, that usually is something that religions do to explain thinks they want to insert god into.

So what you're saying is that you think you know what kind of paint we're using but you don't know where the canvas came from? This would also lead me to believe you don't know how the laws of physics came about correct? Not who discovered them, because they were always there. But how did they come about?
So now what the science types are saying is that they don't know where the canvas came from nor the method of painting the picture but they think they know what kind of paint is being used. In other words, there is more they don't know than they do know. But I'm supposed to believe they know where the paint came from, how old it is, etc? Sorry, but my belief system is sounding more and more logical every day compared to a shrug of the shoulders and "I think this is how the world started". If we've been on the earth as long as some are saying and still haven't even figured out how it got here, how the laws that rule it came about, I would be willing to wager that we might be looking in the wrong places. However, if we've only been looking for 6,000 years or so, I could definitely see how some parts of the puzzle don't fit together yet. I'm not trying to talk down to you and I appreciate you not doing the same. My point is that science has not shown me enough to make me say "You know, this Bible might be wrong." And I don't believe science ever will.

 

[Peter King]

So what you're saying is that you think you know what kind of paint we're using but you don't know where the canvas came from? This would also lead me to believe you don't know how the laws of physics came about correct? Not who discovered them, because they were always there. But how did they come about?
So now what the science types are saying is that they don't know where the canvas came from nor the method of painting the picture but they think they know what kind of paint is being used. In other words, there is more they don't know than they do know. But I'm supposed to believe they know where the paint came from, how old it is, etc? Sorry, but my belief system is sounding more and more logical every day compared to a shrug of the shoulders and "I think this is how the world started". If we've been on the earth as long as some are saying and still haven't even figured out how it got here, how the laws that rule it came about, I would be willing to wager that we might be looking in the wrong places. However, if we've only been looking for 6,000 years or so, I could definitely see how some parts of the puzzle don't fit together yet. I'm not trying to talk down to you and I appreciate you not doing the same. My point is that science has not shown me enough to make me say "You know, this Bible might be wrong." And I don't believe science ever will.

Personally I do not know anything, I do not know where the universe came from and I can understand that people in the dark ages of science and any enlightened thinking decided/thought that it must the work of one or more deities.

And scientists, when it comes to those early days are making their best estimations based on what little evidence is out there. It is with a low certainty factor that they have as to exact facts and date from that time because we might just not have it at the moment or we might even never find it.

However, with the progression of time the certainly factor goes up and up and up. Of our more recent history there is a lot of evolutionary evidence and that is all that is important right here and now.

You might believe in your belief system but I do not because of the word "belief" You believe systems says we must accept certain things as true for which there is no evidence (like one or more deities creating the universe and the earth). And that we cannot work out precisely how we got here and how laws that rule it came about is not because we are looking in the wrong direction, we are looking in the right direction but last time I checked nobody has the ability to take a magic looking glass and see 4 billion years in the past.

Someday we might be able to find that but that is very uncertain too. The world might have come a long way in the last 8 to 10 thousand years but we are still a very ignorant group of beings that has gotten more advanced and less ignorant the past century but there is also a lot we do not know.

You might find fact in the bible, I think it is a well written story about the morals of roughly 2500 year or so ago, but for me it is nothing more than that, an inspirational story for some who believe in the bible and who live by the spirit of the bible (especially the part after Christ or why else call yourself a Christian) and to a source for rigid, uncompromising, zealots who live by the words of 2500 years ago rather than live in the here and now.

But that last part is just my personal opinion. I have heard sermons from someone like Huub Oosterhuis and Carel Ter Linden who use the bible to inspire people and who do not view it as a history book of the world but as a moral history book for the future (or at least that is my characterization of these 2 theologians).

 

[Cephus]

I don't think it's making stuff up. I thinks it's adapting their ideology and doctrine to fit into the modern world without compromising their religious principle...maybe just their religious rigidity. But sure, the people who interpret creation narratives literally aren't very smart. Is that what you wanted to hear? As for people that find a reasonable place for their beliefs in modern science, they don't bother me in the slightest so why not let them practice their faith without trying badgering them?

I didn't mean making stuff up in that sense, just in general. Not having an immediate answer to a question doesn't give you license to invent a solution that appeals to you emotionally. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "I don't know, therefore I'm going to pretend that this is the answer" is not.

 

[winston53660]

So what you're saying is that you think you know what kind of paint we're using but you don't know where the canvas came from?

Speaking purely as an artist

The paint does not matter nor does the canvas. What matters is what one chooses to do with it and the use of these these materials if we are just limited to these materials. Artist will find the most effective way to communicate ideas to an audience. I'll take that paint and use your face as a canvas without you even realizing it

There are many other materials to use though out there

 

[Gaius46]

So what you're saying is that you think you know what kind of paint we're using but you don't know where the canvas came from? This would also lead me to believe you don't know how the laws of physics came about correct? Not who discovered them, because they were always there. But how did they come about?
So now what the science types are saying is that they don't know where the canvas came from nor the method of painting the picture but they think they know what kind of paint is being used. In other words, there is more they don't know than they do know. But I'm supposed to believe they know where the paint came from, how old it is, etc? Sorry, but my belief system is sounding more and more logical every day compared to a shrug of the shoulders and "I think this is how the world started". If we've been on the earth as long as some are saying and still haven't even figured out how it got here, how the laws that rule it came about, I would be willing to wager that we might be looking in the wrong places. However, if we've only been looking for 6,000 years or so, I could definitely see how some parts of the puzzle don't fit together yet. I'm not trying to talk down to you and I appreciate you not doing the same. My point is that science has not shown me enough to make me say "You know, this Bible might be wrong." And I don't believe science ever will.

The only answer science can give to your question is "we don't know". And that ultimately illustrates why science works. The ultimate beginnings of our universe - the time before the first instant after the Big Bang falls outside of science of today. Maybe tomorrow will be different. But today science is ignorant of that and is at least honest enough to admit that ignorance.

 

[SBu]

I didn't mean making stuff up in that sense, just in general. Not having an immediate answer to a question doesn't give you license to invent a solution that appeals to you emotionally. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "I don't know, therefore I'm going to pretend that this is the answer" is not.

Speaking just about rational religious people, and not the creationists and those that take the hebrew bible literally; I think that the answer for them is known. For them there is not a "I don't know." They know it just as you know the earth revolves around the sun, the existence of God that is. So they fill in the gaps that science has not explained or admits limited understanding of and insert their truth.

Should you be able to teach that faith based truth in schools, getting back to the OP. No. Not unless it's a religious school, or a class that covers other religions as part of a broader religion study curriculum.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Personally I do not know anything, I do not know where the universe came from and I can understand that people in the dark ages of science and any enlightened thinking decided/thought that it must the work of one or more deities.

And scientists, when it comes to those early days are making their best estimations based on what little evidence is out there. It is with a low certainty factor that they have as to exact facts and date from that time because we might just not have it at the moment or we might even never find it.

However, with the progression of time the certainly factor goes up and up and up. Of our more recent history there is a lot of evolutionary evidence and that is all that is important right here and now.

You might believe in your belief system but I do not because of the word "belief" You believe systems says we must accept certain things as true for which there is no evidence (like one or more deities creating the universe and the earth). And that we cannot work out precisely how we got here and how laws that rule it came about is not because we are looking in the wrong direction, we are looking in the right direction but last time I checked nobody has the ability to take a magic looking glass and see 4 billion years in the past.

Someday we might be able to find that but that is very uncertain too. The world might have come a long way in the last 8 to 10 thousand years but we are still a very ignorant group of beings that has gotten more advanced and less ignorant the past century but there is also a lot we do not know.

You might find fact in the bible, I think it is a well written story about the morals of roughly 2500 year or so ago, but for me it is nothing more than that, an inspirational story for some who believe in the bible and who live by the spirit of the bible (especially the part after Christ or why else call yourself a Christian) and to a source for rigid, uncompromising, zealots who live by the words of 2500 years ago rather than live in the here and now.

But that last part is just my personal opinion. I have heard sermons from someone like Huub Oosterhuis and Carel Ter Linden who use the bible to inspire people and who do not view it as a history book of the world but as a moral history book for the future (or at least that is my characterization of these 2 theologians).

Thank you for being the most honest and cordial member I have debated on this. I cannot provide you with PROOF ie hard evidence, that God exists. I just can't. However, that is the point of my particular belief system (as is most). Faith. I have faith that He exists, that the words of the Bible are His, and I do my best to live by them. Again, thanks for the debate.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Speaking purely as an artist

The paint does not matter nor does the canvas. What matters is what one chooses to do with it and the use of these these materials if we are just limited to these materials. Artist will find the most effective way to communicate ideas to an audience. I'll take that paint and use your face as a canvas without you even realizing it

There are many other materials to use though out there

To me, the credibility of what scientists say hinges on the other 2/3rds of the mysteries of the universe. They offer nothing solid on those 2/3rds at this point.