Proper Education Standards Prevail

[Liesje]

The Bible is a nice book.

To discuss in a philosophy or religion class. Along with its various translations and so on.

I don't understand why ID/creationism proponents insist it be mentioned or taught or discussed in biology class. It's laughable and embarrassing.

I agree.

 

[Liesje]

I meant I've never understood why so many Christians treat evolution so differently that say...learning about a cell mebrane, studying the digestive system, memorizing the formula for photosynthesis, filling in chi squares. To me, science and religion can be complementary.

 

[silja]

Sorry, I just didn't understand the sentence. I agree that science and religion can be complementary but as my religion does not emphasise a creator I've just never really had to reconcile the two views. Evolution makes perfect sense to me.

ETA: That might also be the reason why I react so strongly when some people (and Christians tend to be in majority among those) suggest that evolution is simple anti-religious.

 

[anitram]

I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it). But when have you ever seen them clamoring to have reincarnation introduced? Or the Hindu theories of the creation/destruction cycles of the world? Never, ever. This isn't about broadening the horizons of students to all possible alternatives, it's about trying to present the Christian theory as something worthy of discussion in a science class.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm glad a few posts on the Internet have got me labelled "most people" and "the Christians who". I don't recall ever saying one word in this thread on Adam (or Eve).

The Biblical account of Adam, the first man is that God created Adam in his own image from the clay of the earth. How do you reconcile the Biblical story of Adam with evolution?

 

[deep]

science and religion can be complementary

yes they can

but often, religion contradicts science


and many other writings can complement science,
some Greek mythology, Shakespeare writings, and a whole host of various cultural writings,
because they complement science
that should make them part of a science curriculum?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it).

What "empirical evidence" is there that supports the idea that there is no intelligent designer behind the Big Bang?

 

[silja]

I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it). But when have you ever seen them clamoring to have reincarnation introduced? Or the Hindu theories of the creation/destruction cycles of the world? Never, ever. This isn't about broadening the horizons of students to all possible alternatives, it's about trying to present the Christian theory as something worthy of discussion in a science class.

I won't say that I find ID supporters disingenuous as a whole. Many see ID as a way to reconcile their religion and the modern world and that is their own affair. However, 'disingenuous' does describe many of the outspoken supporters rather well. As I mentioned above, the claim that ID is non-denominational is simply a lie. It’s a front for Judeo-Christian religious teachings.

and many other writings can complement science,
some Greek mythology, Shakespeare writings, and a whole host of various cultural writings,
because they complement science
that should make them part of a science curriculum?

No, and this is one of my many problems with ID and creationism. If the principle of ID is taken to its natural conclusion if would have to include exceptions for every religious thought that has ever passed through anyones head... though I fail to see what Shakespeare has to do with anything.

 

[Liesje]

I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it). But when have you ever seen them clamoring to have reincarnation introduced? Or the Hindu theories of the creation/destruction cycles of the world? Never, ever. This isn't about broadening the horizons of students to all possible alternatives, it's about trying to present the Christian theory as something worthy of discussion in a science class.

I feel like it should be all, or evolution. The school I went to introduced several theories of creation, including those based solely on science and those from other religions. I think we looked at one or two a day for just a few days, so on the scale of time spent, the whole lesson on creation and all its possibilities was marginal. I don't think that presenting exclusively evolution or ID is the proper way to go about it. Like you said, it's a science class so it's rather pointless to be having this debate. I didn't mind that my school went about it differently and considered many possibilities, but I wouldn't have cared if we only studied evolution. For public schools, just studying evolution obviously is the only option that makes sense. If kids want to learn about ID and other religious creation stories, they can get that in a history or religion course.

 

[Liesje]

yes they can

but often, religion contradicts science


and many other writings can complement science,
some Greek mythology, Shakespeare writings, and a whole host of various cultural writings,
because they complement science
that should make them part of a science curriculum?

I'm not following your logic.....

I was responding to silja's question; I did not intend to say that theology belongs in the science curriculum.

 

[deep]

..though I fail to see what Shakespeare has to do with anything.

there is wisdom, humanity and life lessons to be learned in his writings

if we had the people in the mid-eest studing these classics
they might get better life lessons than what they learn in their religious texts

just my opinion

 

[deep]

I'm not following your logic.....

I was responding to silja's question; I did not intend to say that theology belongs in the science curriculum.

sorry

re-reading your posts

i see that you went to a private (religious?) school.

 

[silja]

there is wisdom, humanity and life lessons to be learned in his writings

if we had the people in the mid-eest studing these classics
they might get better life lessons than what they learn in their religious texts

just my opinion

'We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. '?

I get what you mean but although Shakespeare surely was among the greatest writers that mankind has produced he wasn't a profet. I don't think that religion has any place in a science lesson. Why would I think that the Great Bard should be included? I hope that people in the Middle East - and the Midwest I might add - study the great classics but outside science classes.

 

[Liesje]

sorry

re-reading your posts

i see that you went to a private (religious?) school.

Yes, all the schools I went to have been private and all have taught evolution in science class.

 

[Irvine511]

What "empirical evidence" is there that supports the idea that there is no intelligent designer behind the Big Bang?

the question is backwards.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the Big Bang.

 

[Irvine511]

I get what you mean but although Shakespeare surely was among the greatest writers that mankind has produced he wasn't a profet.

actually, the English Major in me would argue that one can learn much, much more from Shakespeare (or even just Hamlet) than one could ever learn from The Bible.

 

[silja]

actually, the English Major in me would argue that one can learn much, much more from Shakespeare (or even just Hamlet) than one could ever learn from The Bible.

Indeed, I agree. Hamlet is more or less permanently parked by my bed (the book that is... not the dead prince).

 

[80sU2isBest]

actually, the English Major in me would argue that one can learn much, much more from Shakespeare (or even just Hamlet) than one could ever learn from The Bible.

But the English Major in other English Majors might majorly disagree...

 

[80sU2isBest]

the question is backwards.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the Big Bang.

But I'm not trying to prove either one. Someone said that ID shouldn't be taught in school because there is no empirical evidence for it, so I am saying the following:

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."

 

[Irvine511]

But the English Major in other English Majors might majorly disagree...

it could be a major discussion ...

 

[Irvine511]

But I'm not trying to prove either one. Someone said that ID shouldn't be taught in school because there is no empirical evidence for it, so I am saying the following:

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."

the thinking is still mixed up. you don't say, "i believe this, show me the proof that i am wrong."

at present, there is no empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer, therefore, it's all hocus-pocus speculation and thus not science.

show me the empirical evidence that supports the theory that the world wasn't created by a ham sandwich.

 

[silja]

But I'm not trying to prove either one. Someone said that ID shouldn't be taught in school because there is no empirical evidence for it, so I am saying the following:

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."

That’s not the way the ‘empirical evidence standard’ that you refer to works. No self-respecting scientist would even consider publishing on such a ridiculous basis.

Also:

But the English Major in other English Majors might majorly disagree...

it could be a major discussion ...

You both need a major pun-generatorectomy.

 

[BonosSaint]

From another English major :

 

[A_Wanderer]

What "empirical evidence" is there that supports the idea that there is no intelligent designer behind the Big Bang?

What makes your assertion remotely falsifiable? One cannot prove a negative.

 

[A_Wanderer]

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."

Simply the naturalistic evidence that surrounds us, the gene theory of biological information, the encoded genetic information being transcripted during the formation of proteins, the effects of artificial selection that are quantifiable in the lab, the identification of Hox genes and how they relate to building bodies in the metazoans etc.

All purely naturalistic theories and facts that exist in the universe that don't neccessitate any designer, to posit the existence of such a being in the absence of good cause (namely that we have discovered explanations for things once thought divine that have turned out to be rooted in the real world) is unscientific, the evidence does not support a designer, the naturalistic explanation is the most plausible and reductionary point of view ~ if we introduce a designer you are not being reductionary, you are introducing an incomprehensable element to explain something that at a glance seems incomprehensable.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of empiricism and falsifiability in scientific investigation; not only must a good theory or hypothesis be able to explain the facts, it must also be disprovable; the hypothesis that a designer certainly does exist is not falsifiable, you framing the question and justification in terms of proving a negative is no more scientific than me claiming that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe and made the evidence look like this wasn't the case.

 

[BVS]

You made a flippant and condescending remark and now you're turning it around and getting upset with me for actually asking you to back up your flippant remark?

That flippant remark is very true, I'm sorry if you don't believe that.

Have you read and studied the original source, the Hebrew Bible, and found a second meaning for "creation" that is akin to letting nature take over and complete the creation process?

If not, you have no business making fun of others for not "going to the source". That has been my point during my entire line of questioning.

I told you the other word used, there's plenty of information out there on this issue.

You suggested twice, I backed it up the first time, the second time was uncalled for.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The Biblical account of Adam, the first man is that God created Adam in his own image from the clay of the earth. How do you reconcile the Biblical story of Adam with evolution?

How do you reconcile biblical stories such as this with reality?

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Biblical account of Adam, the first man is that God created Adam in his own image from the clay of the earth. How do you reconcile the Biblical story of Adam with evolution?

Again with the reality thing, clay is basically an aluminosilicate composition so it has Aluminium, Silica and Oxygen in abundance with lower quantities of other elements, why would this deity waste it's time making carbon based life forms from silica?

If we want to talk about improbabilities then the creation of man from elements that are not readily present in organic chemistry (such as Silicon for instance) is a pretty damn big one, apart from the entire formation of a human being with all of the flaws that they have (obviously this deity didn't think to give women even wider hips to make birthing these insanely large headed offspring a bit easier).

This myth simply cannot be reconciled with the evidence around us, it is much more plausible that the oral tradition of these semitic tribes was recorded and passed down and their creation myths amalgamated. Of course if we don't believe in a real Adam then the notion of Original Sin is fucked up and the theology will become unwound.

 

[Angela Harlem]

yes they can

but often, religion contradicts science

and here, in a nutshell, is the biggest question mark, in my view. science tells us a man cannot be made in the manner adam was. science tells us a man cannot walk on water. faith cannot get a crippled man to walk, nor let a blind man see. it cannot feed hundreds or more with a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread with baskets of food to spare. some say the bible is precisely the word of god. if so, then god loves a tall story. otherwise, it's a load of hogwash, isn't it? it is absolutely impossible. and yet men and women of all walks of life and of all intelligence follow this as divine truth. it astounds me. a billion people in this world buy it. why?

 

[A_Wanderer]

The most intelligent person can convince themselves any reasoning and justification for faith that was imprinted when they were children.