This pointless argument (grow up, people!)
pz
"Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a lot of
> interesting theories and opinions.
>
> However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness, backbiting,
> and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side and the
> "evolutionist" side. This strikes me as silly, because the two viewpoints
> aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. Both could be true (theistic
> evolution) or neither could be true (I prefer to believe you're all soulless
> holograms, temporarily stationed here for my amusement.)
>
> I just don't get why so many obviously intelligent people get so down and
> dirty and obnoxious about this. Obviously, you're never going to convince
> the other side. Creationists believe the bible is the divine and inspired
> word of god, and many believe the story of creation is literally true.
> Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to prove or disprove it
> scientifically. It's not in the scientific lexicon. The whole christian
> religion is founded on faith. You have it, or you don't; you can't
> calculate it as the result of some mathematical proof. Yet so many
> well-spoken and educated folks on here fail to grasp that; they seem to
> insist that by some clever model, they can eliminate people's faith in the
> biblical word.
It's rather rare to see anyone try to talk someone out of a belief in
christianity, the bible, etc. here.
>
> On the other hand, many of the creationists continue to refer to scriptural
> word and expect it to be taken as scientific truth. ("God says x, therefore
> y cannot be a physical possibility".) Of course, "faith" has no place or
> meaning in the scientific method. So trying to build a coherent scientific
> model on something out of the bible is a meaningless exercise. I once heard
> a theory that God had created things such as the stars and dinosaur bones
> and put them out there just to test us and see who would use these as
> excuses to disbelieve the holy word; they were mere illusions or props and
> there were actually no stars, dinosaurs, etc. I don't subscribe to that
> theory, but how can you disprove that scientifically? You can't. I defy
> any scientist to disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of an
> omnipotent being.
>
> Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send to this
> message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call them nasty
> names and pick fights. It's as if one set of folks is using base 5 and the
> other set is using base 10, and neither side understands why when they add
> 3+3, they get different answers; both sides insist on shoving their answer
> down the throats of the others, who of course cannot understand it at all.
> Then someone starts hurling the insults.
>
> I've seen better behavior out of 6-year-olds.
>
> So, grow up, folks. You really have nothing to argue about. I don't even
> think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree" here; you really don't
> have anything to disagree about; you're talking about totally different
> things. Faith and science aren't incompatible; they're totally separate
> things. There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in a
> classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as valid a
> theory as the other. And if, at some point in the future, additional
> philosophical approaches to the story of existence come to predominate in
> popular culture, there's no reason why those things couldn't be taught as
> well. (I will be heavily promoting my hologram theory, to be sure.)
>
> Who is to say whose opinion is right? For all we know, maybe the
> Zoroastrians are the only ones with a correct understanding of the universe.
> Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the viewpoint of
> the other side. It's only when you start impugning the viewpoints of others
> (i.e., "religion is inferior to science, christians believe in myth and
> fairy tale," or "science is against the word of god, darwinism is
> blasphemy") that you deserve not to be heard.
>
How peculiar. Are you even aware of the fact that you have just made a
post that says very little of substance, but does attack and insult
basically everyone on this newsgroup? Isn't that precisely what you were
complaining about?
--
pz
Richard Uhrich
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a lot of
> interesting theories and opinions.
>
> However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness, backbiting,
> and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side and the
> "evolutionist" side. This strikes me as silly, because the two viewpoints
> aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. Both could be true (theistic
> evolution) or neither could be true (I prefer to believe you're all soulless
> holograms, temporarily stationed here for my amusement.)
>
> I just don't get why so many obviously intelligent people get so down and
> dirty and obnoxious about this. Obviously, you're never going to convince
> the other side. Creationists believe the bible is the divine and inspired
> word of god, and many believe the story of creation is literally true.
> Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to prove or disprove it
> scientifically. It's not in the scientific lexicon. The whole christian
> religion is founded on faith. You have it, or you don't; you can't
> calculate it as the result of some mathematical proof. Yet so many
> well-spoken and educated folks on here fail to grasp that; they seem to
> insist that by some clever model, they can eliminate people's faith in the
> biblical word.
>
And this is the crux of the debate herein: you assert Xian Creationism
and Theory of Evolution can be taught side by side in the classroom
because "one is just as valid as the other."
Ignoring the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution for a moment,
consider the impracticality of giving equal time, "side by side," to the
creation myths of hundreds of religions. The arguments of philosophy and
theology should not be part of children's science classes.
Although you assert the debate herein---the very purpose of
talk.origins---is pointless, obviously you have already taken an
extremely controversial and minority stance in that debate.
Richard
> And if, at some point in the future, additional
> philosophical approaches to the story of existence come to predominate in
> popular culture, there's no reason why those things couldn't be taught as
> well. (I will be heavily promoting my hologram theory, to be sure.)
>
> Who is to say whose opinion is right? For all we know, maybe the
> Zoroastrians are the only ones with a correct understanding of the universe.
> Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the viewpoint of
> the other side. It's only when you start impugning the viewpoints of others
> (i.e., "religion is inferior to science, christians believe in myth and
> fairy tale," or "science is against the word of god, darwinism is
> blasphemy") that you deserve not to be heard.
>
> - Eric Lambeth
>
>
>
>
Florian
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
That's ok, you don't need to attribute your own text when you're
starting a thread.
> After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a
> lot of interesting theories and opinions.
Great!
> However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness,
> backbiting, and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side
> and the "evolutionist" side.
This has been at your option. Just score down the "X IS A LYING
BASTARD" and "Y FAILS TO SUPPORT ARGUMENT Z -- AGAIN!!!1!" threads and
you need never see them again.
> This strikes me as silly, because the two viewpoints aren't even
> necessarily mutually exclusive. Both could be true (theistic
> evolution) or neither could be true (I prefer to believe you're all
> soulless holograms, temporarily stationed here for my amusement.)
In my experience, the biggest flamefests seem to involve religious
nuts attempting to defend some items of faith with shoddy logic and
scientific arguments in the face of contrary evidence, halfwits
clinging to previously refuted arguments, or crackpots with crackpot
causes. There's a number of regulars on t.o who clearly enjoy baiting
these beasts, and who's to deny them their fun?
> I just don't get why so many obviously intelligent people get so
> down and dirty and obnoxious about this. Obviously, you're never
> going to convince the other side.
It's happened on occasion.
> Creationists believe the bible is the divine and inspired word of
> god, and many believe the story of creation is literally true.
> Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to prove or disprove
> it scientifically.
This is not so. It's easy to show "scientifically" that the Creation
account in Genesis cannot be literally true.
> It's not in the scientific lexicon. The whole christian religion is
> founded on faith. You have it, or you don't; you can't calculate it
> as the result of some mathematical proof.
Christianity and Creationism are two different beasts. Scientists
generally have no quarrel with Christians, any more than than with
Shintoists or Hindus.
> Yet so many well-spoken and educated folks on here fail to grasp
> that; they seem to insist that by some clever model, they can
> eliminate people's faith in the biblical word.
The faithful who stumble upon this channel come in here looking for an
argument, just like the other well-spoken and educated folks. And few
people seriously attempt to eliminate anyone's faith in the holy book
of their choice. A lot of people *will* quite readily jump in to
correct any misconceptions others may have about scientific facts,
theories, and myths.
> On the other hand, many of the creationists continue to refer to
> scriptural word and expect it to be taken as scientific truth.
> ("God says x, therefore y cannot be a physical possibility".) Of
> course, "faith" has no place or meaning in the scientific method.
> So trying to build a coherent scientific model on something out of
> the bible is a meaningless exercise.
This is where I finally agree with you. Unfortunately there is a
movement to push a Christian religious agenda in the guise of science
into public schools, and this requires that the appearance of
something that can be called "creationist science" in fundraising
parties must be upheld.
> I once heard a theory that God had created things such as the stars
> and dinosaur bones and put them out there just to test us and see
> who would use these as excuses to disbelieve the holy word; they
> were mere illusions or props and there were actually no stars,
> dinosaurs, etc. I don't subscribe to that theory, but how can you
> disprove that scientifically? You can't. I defy any scientist to
> disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of an
> omnipotent being.
Yes, this is the final Deus ex machina foxhole of all creationists.
The argument is not encouraged on t.o, because, as you said, there is
no way to refute it, and it tends to kill any further discussion.
Fortunately, any creationist retreating into this hole pretty much has
to stay in it until his rations run out, because if he pops his head
out again, he's liable to get killfiled by anybody involved in the
preceding debate.
> Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send
> to this message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call
> them nasty names and pick fights.
Well, some people enjoy that. Do what we do, score them down, or
score down the threads.
> It's as if one set of folks is using base 5 and the other set is
> using base 10, and neither side understands why when they add 3+3,
> they get different answers; both sides insist on shoving their
> answer down the throats of the others, who of course cannot
> understand it at all. Then someone starts hurling the insults.
These fights tend to involve a small number of easily identifiable
people going back and forth. Hint, hint.
Ok, I know, you're trying here to subtly appeal to these people,
secretly hoping they might recognize themselves and reform. Good luck
with that :)
> I've seen better behavior out of 6-year-olds.
And you'll see worse behavior on almost any other newsgroup, and on
*any* Internet message board. Face it, this is democracy and free
speech at its raw, guttural, monosyllabic finest. Anyway, in my
experience posts on t.o only tend to get ugly when they're crossposts.
Just score down anything posted to two or more groups.
> So, grow up, folks. You really have nothing to argue about.
There's always stuff to argue about as long as both sides wield
significant political power.
> I don't even think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree"
> here; you really don't have anything to disagree about; you're
> talking about totally different things. Faith and science aren't
> incompatible; they're totally separate things.
Wish it were so, but for some reason the faithful seem to insist on
perverting science to further their political needs.
> There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in a
> classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as
> valid a theory as the other.
If you're a 3-year-old child, yes, both theories seem equally valid.
If you've actually got experience living in the real world, you'll
find that you can't really dismiss evolution as "just another theory".
And even if you were teaching faith and science side by side, there'd
still be the question of which faiths should be taught. It's going to
be pretty hard on our kids to have to absorb Shinto and Buddhist and
Hindu and fundamentalist Muslim teachings, Flat Earth, Time Cube, and
the Universe Is a Plutonium Atom all at once. We'll probably have to
split the subjects up over several years, and then there's going to be
a fight over which gets taught first and which last.
> And if, at some point in the future, additional philosophical
> approaches to the story of existence come to predominate in popular
> culture, there's no reason why those things couldn't be taught as
> well. (I will be heavily promoting my hologram theory, to be sure.)
>
> Who is to say whose opinion is right?
Hey, good point -- how about we all *look at the world and see*?
> For all we know, maybe the Zoroastrians are the only ones with a
> correct understanding of the universe.
Could be. Should be easy to check -- what does Zoroastrian cosmology
predict about the cosmic microwave background, the age of the Earth,
or the evolution of Man?
> Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the
> viewpoint of the other side. It's only when you start impugning the
> viewpoints of others (i.e., "religion is inferior to science,
> christians believe in myth and fairy tale," or "science is against
> the word of god, darwinism is blasphemy") that you deserve not to be
> heard.
This depends on the context. I would expect a religious school to ban
evolution theory, because the parents presumably know what they're
setting their kids up for, and paying for it. Likewise, I would
expect a public school to ban creationist myths of *all* religions
from being taught as truth in science class.
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
Dick C
news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
A very mediocre troll
On a scale of one to ten I would rate this about a four.
Sorry, you will need to do better. Punch it up a bit, get more
insulting and use fewer lines.
>
> After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a
> lot of interesting theories and opinions.
>
> However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness,
> backbiting, and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side
> and the "evolutionist" side. This strikes me as silly, because the
> two viewpoints aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. Both could
> be true (theistic evolution) or neither could be true (I prefer to
> believe you're all soulless holograms, temporarily stationed here for
> my amusement.)
>
> I just don't get why so many obviously intelligent people get so down
> and dirty and obnoxious about this. Obviously, you're never going to
> convince the other side. Creationists believe the bible is the divine
> and inspired word of god, and many believe the story of creation is
> literally true. Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to
> prove or disprove it scientifically. It's not in the scientific
> lexicon. The whole christian religion is founded on faith. You have
> it, or you don't; you can't calculate it as the result of some
> mathematical proof. Yet so many well-spoken and educated folks on
> here fail to grasp that; they seem to insist that by some clever
> model, they can eliminate people's faith in the biblical word.
>
> On the other hand, many of the creationists continue to refer to
> scriptural word and expect it to be taken as scientific truth. ("God
> says x, therefore y cannot be a physical possibility".) Of course,
> "faith" has no place or meaning in the scientific method. So trying
> to build a coherent scientific model on something out of the bible is
> a meaningless exercise. I once heard a theory that God had created
> things such as the stars and dinosaur bones and put them out there
> just to test us and see who would use these as excuses to disbelieve
> the holy word; they were mere illusions or props and there were
> actually no stars, dinosaurs, etc. I don't subscribe to that theory,
> but how can you disprove that scientifically? You can't. I defy any
> scientist to disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of
> an omnipotent being.
>
> Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send to
> this message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call
> them nasty names and pick fights. It's as if one set of folks is
> using base 5 and the other set is using base 10, and neither side
> understands why when they add 3+3, they get different answers; both
> sides insist on shoving their answer down the throats of the others,
> who of course cannot understand it at all. Then someone starts hurling
> the insults.
>
> I've seen better behavior out of 6-year-olds.
>
> So, grow up, folks. You really have nothing to argue about. I don't
> even think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree" here; you
> really don't have anything to disagree about; you're talking about
> totally different things. Faith and science aren't incompatible;
> they're totally separate things. There's no reason why you can't have
> both taught side by side in a classroom - if you bring no prejudices
> to the table, one is just as valid a theory as the other. And if, at
> some point in the future, additional philosophical approaches to the
> story of existence come to predominate in popular culture, there's no
> reason why those things couldn't be taught as well. (I will be
> heavily promoting my hologram theory, to be sure.)
>
> Who is to say whose opinion is right? For all we know, maybe the
> Zoroastrians are the only ones with a correct understanding of the
> universe. Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban
> the viewpoint of the other side. It's only when you start impugning
> the viewpoints of others (i.e., "religion is inferior to science,
> christians believe in myth and fairy tale," or "science is against
> the word of god, darwinism is blasphemy") that you deserve not to be
> heard.
>
> - Eric Lambeth
>
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
email: crav...@msn.net
Scott
"Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a lot
of
> interesting theories and opinions.
>
> However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness, backbiting,
> and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side and the
> "evolutionist" side. This strikes me as silly, because the two
viewpoints
> aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. Both could be true (theistic
> evolution) or neither could be true (I prefer to believe you're all
soulless
> holograms, temporarily stationed here for my amusement.)
So wouldn't soulless holograms with immature hostility being here only for
your amusemt be saying something about your maturity?
>
> I just don't get why so many obviously intelligent people get so down and
> dirty and obnoxious about this.
That's cuz they're howlers http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame49.html
Well if it's an elaborate ruse than this God would be something other than
the Christian God. This argument turns God into a Loki. Put it this way: If
you/they/someone believes that God put these things here as a test of Faith
then his created nature wouldn't be rational. You couldn't trust anything
you experienced in nature....For a Christrian that would include your belief
in the nature of Jesus. Jesus might just be a test to see if your faith
could be drawn away for Yahweh.
>
> Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send to this
> message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call them nasty
> names and pick fights. It's as if one set of folks is using base 5 and
the
> other set is using base 10, and neither side understands why when they add
> 3+3, they get different answers; both sides insist on shoving their
answer
> down the throats of the others, who of course cannot understand it at all.
It isn't about not understanding creationist; it's has more to do with their
cognitive dissonance
> Then someone starts hurling the insults.
and that serves your amusement.
>
> I've seen better behavior out of 6-year-olds.
>
> So, grow up, folks.
yes Nanny http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame12.html
You really have nothing to argue about. I don't even
> think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree" here; you really don't
> have anything to disagree about; you're talking about totally different
> things. Faith and science aren't incompatible; they're totally separate
> things. There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in
a
> classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as valid
a
> theory as the other. And if, at some point in the future, additional
> philosophical approaches to the story of existence come to predominate in
> popular culture, there's no reason why those things couldn't be taught as
> well. (I will be heavily promoting my hologram theory, to be sure.)
Do you realize that you're saying Truth is subjective? Do you not believe in
Truth with a capital "T"? You sound like a relativist
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cog-rel.htm
>
> Who is to say whose opinion is right? For all we know, maybe the
> Zoroastrians are the only ones with a correct understanding of the
universe.
> Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the viewpoint
of
> the other side. It's only when you start impugning the viewpoints of
others
> (i.e., "religion is inferior to science, christians believe in myth and
> fairy tale," or "science is against the word of god, darwinism is
> blasphemy") that you deserve not to be heard.
a 16 billion year old universe and a 6 thousand year old Creationist's
universe can't both be True.
Scott
Scott
"Dick C" <foo.d...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91E8DACE05C...@130.133.1.4...
> "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > Eric Lambeth wrote:
> A very mediocre troll
> On a scale of one to ten I would rate this about a four.
> Sorry, you will need to do better. Punch it up a bit, get more
> insulting and use fewer lines.
>
This should help him do better
http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html
Scott
Adam Marczyk
news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[snip]
> Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the viewpoint of
> the other side.
We most certainly do have a right to ban sectarian religious viewpoints from
being taught in public schools instead of actual science. Like it or not, as
much as you'd like to pretend you're above this debate, you've just stated a
position that puts you firmly aligned with the creationist camp.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Klivo
...
> Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send to this
> message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call them nasty
> names and pick fights. It's as if one set of folks is using base 5 and the
> other set is using base 10, and neither side understands why when they add
> 3+3, they get different answers; both sides insist on shoving their answer
> down the throats of the others, who of course cannot understand it at all.
>
What I find annoying is the arrogant putzes who like to
pretend they're above it all.
> So, grow up, folks.
So kiss our butts, Eric.
> - Eric Lambeth
Cleve
xyzzy
>Who is to say whose opinion is right?
I am. And I say your opinion is garbage. Good day.
Kevin Wright
> In article <KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Lambeth wrote:
> >
> > think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree" here; you really don't
> > have anything to disagree about; you're talking about totally different
> > things. Faith and science aren't incompatible; they're totally separate
> > things. There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in a
> > classroom
snip ...
Very dangerously wrong, Eric
The creationist view denies ways of controlling the AIDS virus and
other viruses as they evolve in the human body for example.
By denying the true history of the earth and the universe creationists
would deny our critical knowledge in learning from past extinctions
and climatic changes over millions of years - knowledge that will be
essential for our survival into the future.
In short, creationists represent an evil black tide of superstition
and ignorance that has plagued mankind for centuries in the past and
would destroy our future.
Rgds
David Knipe
> > Zoroastrians are the only ones with a correct understanding of the universe.
> > Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the viewpoint of
> > the other side. It's only when you start impugning the viewpoints of others
> > (i.e., "religion is inferior to science, christians believe in myth and
> > fairy tale," or "science is against the word of god, darwinism is
> > blasphemy") that you deserve not to be heard.
> >
>
> How peculiar. Are you even aware of the fact that you have just made a
> post that says very little of substance, but does attack and insult
> basically everyone on this newsgroup? Isn't that precisely what you were
> complaining about?
Actually I think Eric has made a lot of fair points. In fact I think
it's safe to say I agree with most things he said. I think it's OK to
attack people's arguments by logical rebuttals, etc, but attacking
people personally is bad. Also his post is anti-inflammatory in that,
if people took it to heart, there would be a lot less bickering and
everyone would be happier. The posts he is arguing against have the
opposite effect.
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:uavsjig...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Eric Lambeth <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > We most certainly do have a right to ban sectarian religious viewpoints
> from
> > being taught in public schools instead of actual science. Like it or not,
> as
> > much as you'd like to pretend you're above this debate, you've just stated
> a
> > position that puts you firmly aligned with the creationist camp.
> >
>
> First of all, you do NOT have that right, any more than some religious
> zealot has the right to demand that his world view and no others be forced
> down the throats of others.
According to the constitution of the country I live in, I most certainly do have
that right. Government must be strictly neutral towards, and separate from,
religious belief, and is not allowed to promote one religion over any other or
to promote religion over non-religion. Creationism is a religious belief derived
from a particular literal interpretation of a particular chapter of one
religion's holy book. It is a violation of the First Amendment to teach it in
public schools as science; to do so amounts to government-sponsored
proselytization. Evolution is not a religious belief, but a scientific theory.
Unlike creationism, it makes no statements either way on the existence of a god
or the validity of any particular religion. Furthermore, it is good science and
a vital component of an accurate understanding of the world. I refuse to accept
the absurdity that anything anyone believes in is equally valid and equally
deserving of time in public schools. That's simply false - political correctness
and overtolerant multiculturalism run wild. There is such a thing as truth, and
our schools should teach it.
> You may not subscribe to the creationist
> theory; that doesn't mean that it's not a meaningful concept for millions
> of others. The same can be said about the theory evolution.
The fact that a particular religious belief system may be meaningful to some
segments of the population does not give the government the right to teach that
belief system in public schools as scientific truth. Creationism is not
scientific, it is wrong, and it does not deserve to be taught.
If you want to go by the concept of "majority rules" when it comes to deciding
what to teach as science, then it's patently obvious that the majority in
question should not be the general public - the majority should be the
scientific community, the experts who have high levels of education, who
understand these theories at a deep level and work with them every day; in
short, the people who *actually do science*. And in the scientific community,
creationism is the province of a tiny minority of fundamentalist holdouts, while
evolution is the unifying theory of all of biology; it continues to yield useful
insights and make correct predictions and is too strongly supported by the
evidence for there to be any serious question about its validity. The scientific
debate about this topic was over 150 years ago. Creationism lost, hands-down. It
could not account for the facts, and the evidence against it has only
accumulated since then, while no evidence seriously contradicting any part of
evolutionary theory has ever been found. To pretend otherwise is to do our
children a serious disservice - it's to teach an entire generation of people
that we don't have any way to tell the difference between right and wrong.
> Secondly, I tried very hard not to express my personal views about our
> existence, because I'm really not trying to continue the pointless argument
> in the vein of "my theory is better than your theory." From my words, you
> have no idea if I 'm a creationist or not.
Regardless, by advocating equal time you have taken the creationists' side.
George Acton
>
> "Kevin Wright" <ke...@kgwrigh.eiomail.com> wrote in message
> news:993f80db.02040...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Very dangerously wrong, Eric
> >
> > The creationist view denies ways of controlling the AIDS virus and
> > other viruses as they evolve in the human body for example.
> >
> > By denying the true history of the earth and the universe creationists
> > would deny our critical knowledge in learning from past extinctions
> > and climatic changes over millions of years - knowledge that will be
> > essential for our survival into the future.
> >
> > In short, creationists represent an evil black tide of superstition
> > and ignorance that has plagued mankind for centuries in the past and
> > would destroy our future.
> > Rgds
> >
>
> spread of AIDS and other viruses, but let's assume for purposes of argument
> that what you've stated is true. In the christian view of things, the
> ultimate result of faith is eternal paradise in heaven. If you start with
> that premise, isn't a bit of suffering from AIDS complications worthwhile?
> Personally, if someone offered me a billion years of bliss as long as I took
> 20 years of misery, I'd be pretty tempted to accept the bargain. Now, I
> recognize that you probably don't believe in the concept of heaven, so for
> you, the bargain would be 20 years of misery, and then an infinity of
> nothingness. So obviously, to you, the deal would not be worth it. But
> that means that the answer all depends on your starting assumptions, doesn't
> it? Even if christianity/creationism enhances the spread of AIDS
> dramatically, you can only show that that's a bad thing if you start from
> the assumption that christianity is invalid.
Creationism =! Christianity.
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3CAFC74...@san.rr.com...
> > Eric Lambeth wrote:
> >
> >
> > And this is the crux of the debate herein: you assert Xian Creationism
> > and Theory of Evolution can be taught side by side in the classroom
> > because "one is just as valid as the other."
> >
> > Ignoring the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution for a moment,
> > consider the impracticality of giving equal time, "side by side," to the
> > creation myths of hundreds of religions. The arguments of philosophy and
> > theology should not be part of children's science classes.
> >
> > Although you assert the debate herein---the very purpose of
> > talk.origins---is pointless, obviously you have already taken an
> > extremely controversial and minority stance in that debate.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Well, I believe I said in my original post that yes, if additional theories
> of our existence come to predominate in popular culture, they probably ought
> to be taught as well. It just so happens that evolution and christian
> creationism are the only mainstream viewpoints at present.
Creationism is not a mainstream scientific "viewpoint", and
hasn't been for over a century. Therefore it is inappropriate to
teach it in public school science classes.
> Both are totally
> different approaches to explaining our existence, but both are important to
> many people in their daily lives. (Actually, the religious view is probably
> more important to many people who use it as a daily motivation/inspiration
> in their lives; not too many people derive meaningful inspiration from the
> theory of evolution, I'd wager.) I see no reason why the adherents of one
> philosophy should be able to silence the adherents of another, short of
> objective proof that one theory is wrong, which of course is impossible.
Evolution isn't a "philosophy", nor does it have "adherents". It's
a part of conventional science.
It is a misrepresentation that anyone is trying to "silence"
Creationists. They are perfectly free to practice and express their
religious views.
> As an aside, I don't really think the first amendment is material in a
> debate about objective truth; just because it was ratified by the founding
> fathers 200 years ago. Even assuming that we have interpreted the principle
> of separation of church and state as they intended, do you think the
> founding fatheres were the last authoritative word on everything? Do you
> believe that blacks are three-fifths of a person? To put it another way, if
> the first amendment said "thou shalt teach religion in schools, and all
> persons shall be compelled to worship christ, and all propnents of evolution
> shall be burned at the stake," would you throw up your hands and say "oh
> well, that's what the constitution says, I guess I'll believe in
> christianity"?
No one is claiming that any part of the Constition expresses
"objective truth". And it was ratified by the states; the Founders
only wrote it.
The Constitution is indeed the last authoritative word until
it was amended.
It is a misrepresentation that we decided to ignore the
3/5 compromise because we wanted to, as you are proposing to do
with the First Amendment. It was changed by amendment.
The relevance of your hypothetical of Christianity written into
the Constitution is an enigma. If my gramdmother had a moustache,
she'd be my grandfather.
> "Florian" <peta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:m31ydsg...@tiainen.domain.invalid...
> > "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Eric Lambeth wrote:
> >
> > > Creationists believe the bible is the divine and inspired word of
> > > god, and many believe the story of creation is literally true.
> > > Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to prove or disprove
> > > it scientifically.
> >
> > This is not so. It's easy to show "scientifically" that the Creation
> > account in Genesis cannot be literally true.
>
> Only if you assume various scientific principles to be true to start with.
> If you believe in your heart that the bible is literally true, and that is
> your starting point, then it's easy to show "scientifically" that evolution
> can not be true.
But not by the norms that prevail in every other branch of science
for treating evidence.
> > Christianity and Creationism are two different beasts. Scientists
> > generally have no quarrel with Christians, any more than than with
> > Shintoists or Hindus.
>
> From reading the messages on this board I have not discerned a meaningful
> difference.
>
> > This is where I finally agree with you. Unfortunately there is a
> > movement to push a Christian religious agenda in the guise of science
> > into public schools, and this requires that the appearance of
> > something that can be called "creationist science" in fundraising
> > parties must be upheld.
> >
> > > I once heard a theory that God had created things such as the stars
> > > and dinosaur bones and put them out there just to test us and see
> > > who would use these as excuses to disbelieve the holy word; they
> > > were mere illusions or props and there were actually no stars,
> > > dinosaurs, etc. I don't subscribe to that theory, but how can you
> > > disprove that scientifically? You can't. I defy any scientist to
> > > disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of an
> > > omnipotent being.
> >
> > Yes, this is the final Deus ex machina foxhole of all creationists.
> > The argument is not encouraged on t.o, because, as you said, there is
> > no way to refute it, and it tends to kill any further discussion.
> > Fortunately, any creationist retreating into this hole pretty much has
> > to stay in it until his rations run out, because if he pops his head
> > out again, he's liable to get killfiled by anybody involved in the
> > preceding debate.
> >
> > > Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send
> > > to this message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call
> > > them nasty names and pick fights.
> >
> > Well, some people enjoy that. Do what we do, score them down, or
> > score down the threads.
>
> Ok, I can see that for some people, rowdy arguments and name calling are a
> fun way to spend a weekend. If you take many of these posts at face value,
> people seem to be getting violently angry with each other, trying to prove
> their points to others who do not subscribe to the same philosophy. My
> point was that there's no reason these two viewpoints can't peacefully
> co-exist side by side, with a tacit recognition that the answer you believe
> in simply depends on your starting assumptions.
Trying to "teach" that both are true in public schools presents
obvious problems. Teaching that both are accepted as mainstream
science is lying to schoolchildren.
> > > There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in a
> > > classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as
> > > valid a theory as the other.
> >
> > If you're a 3-year-old child, yes, both theories seem equally valid.
> > If you've actually got experience living in the real world, you'll
> > find that you can't really dismiss evolution as "just another theory".
>
> I know plenty of intelligent adults who are devout creationists.
But it's part of their religion, and as we have mentioned, it is
unconstitutional for the government to promote religion.
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:uavsjig...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Eric Lambeth <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > We most certainly do have a right to ban sectarian religious viewpoints
> from
> > being taught in public schools instead of actual science. Like it or not,
> as
> > much as you'd like to pretend you're above this debate, you've just stated
> a
> > position that puts you firmly aligned with the creationist camp.
> >
>
> First of all, you do NOT have that right, any more than some religious
> zealot has the right to demand that his world view and no others be forced
> down the throats of others. You may not subscribe to the creationist
> theory; that doesn't mean that it's not a meaningful concept for millions
> of others. The same can be said about the theory evolution.
Nobody has a problem with stating that teaching evolution isn't
intended to disparage anyone's religions beliefs. There is no
problem with telling children that they don't have to "believe in"
anything in science courses in the sam way that people "believe in"
religion.
> Secondly, I tried very hard not to express my personal views about our
> existence, because I'm really not trying to continue the pointless argument
> in the vein of "my theory is better than your theory." From my words, you
> have no idea if I 'm a creationist or not.
Nobody cares if you're a Creationist or not. The issue us whether
we should violate the Constitution by having the government
promote it.
> "xyzzy" <xy...@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3cb00e66.62162204@news...
> > "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Who is to say whose opinion is right?
> >
> > I am. And I say your opinion is garbage. Good day.
> >
>
> Again, I didn't even express my personal views. I condemned those on both
> sides who would unilaterally silence the opinions of others with whom the
> disagree. Of which behavior, you have provided a perfect example; I notice
> you didn't even state a coherent position of your own but simply waded in to
> slander others.
>
> "9for5" <9f...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:9for5-132AD7....@enews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Faith and science may not be incompatible, but creationism and science
> > _are_ incompatible. Take the age of the Earth as an example.
> > Creationism claims this to be around 6000 years, based on an
> > interpretation of an ancient religious script. Geology claims it is
> > around 4.5 billion years, based on mountains of empirical evidence and
> > well-tested scientific theories. It is absurd to say that one is just as
> > valid as the other.
>
> There *are* theories which reconcile the two viewpoints, although I grant
> you, they require quite a bit of intellectual contortion. My statement that
> one is just as valid as the other, though, wasn't really speaking to the
> compatibility of the two theories. I was more trying to say that you can't
> prove one over the other without settting up your starting assumptions in
> the first place to favor the theory you prefer. You want to prove evolution
> over creation? Start with the scientific method. You want to prove
> creation over evolution? Start with a literal reading of the bible.
> Neither method proves anything, except to reveal your starting biases.
Public school science classes shouldn't start with the assumption of
the infallibility of a religious book. The question then becomes
whose religious book we start with. That is an issue the Founders
spared us with the First Amendment.
--George Acton
> Perhaps I did step over the line a bit with my remarks about a "bunch of six
> year olds" and to "grow up, folks." I was trying to enhance the dialouge a
> bit and those remarks probably served only to incite the kind of thing I was
> complaining about. I guess I got a bit carried away with myself.
> For those remarks, I do apologize.
>
> - Eric Lambeth
Bigdakine
>From: "Eric Lambeth" elam...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/6/02 5:23 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
>After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a lot of
>interesting theories and opinions.
>
>However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness, backbiting,
>and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side and the
>"evolutionist" side. This strikes me as silly, because the two viewpoints
>aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive.
Religion and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. Creationism and evolution
are.
Both could be true (theistic
>evolution) or neither could be true (I prefer to believe you're all soulless
>holograms, temporarily stationed here for my amusement.)
>
>I just don't get why so many obviously intelligent people get so down and
>dirty and obnoxious about this. Obviously, you're never going to convince
>the other side.
You'd be surprised. There are a few t.o regulars who are converts..
Creationists believe the bible is the divine and inspired
>word of god, and many believe the story of creation is literally true.
>Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to prove or disprove it
>scientifically.
I'm sorry but that is wrong. Flood geology for example, was disproved nearly
200 years ago.
It's not in the scientific lexicon. The whole christian
>religion is founded on faith.
At issue are the articles of that faith. Do they require that one believe the
world is 6000 years or that God didn't create using evolution?
You have it, or you don't; you can't
>calculate it as the result of some mathematical proof. Yet so many
>well-spoken and educated folks on here fail to grasp that; they seem to
>insist that by some clever model, they can eliminate people's faith in the
>biblical word.
>
LOL. You haven't been here long enough. Many of the folks on the evolution side
have faith in the Biblical word. THey just don't intepret it literally.
>On the other hand, many of the creationists continue to refer to scriptural
>word and expect it to be taken as scientific truth. ("God says x, therefore
>y cannot be a physical possibility".) Of course, "faith" has no place or
>meaning in the scientific method. So trying to build a coherent scientific
>model on something out of the bible is a meaningless exercise. I once heard
>a theory that God had created things such as the stars and dinosaur bones
>and put them out there just to test us and see who would use these as
>excuses to disbelieve the holy word; they were mere illusions or props and
>there were actually no stars, dinosaurs, etc. I don't subscribe to that
>theory, but how can you disprove that scientifically? You can't. I defy
>any scientist to disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of an
>omnipotent being.
You're right. You can't. THats why such ideas are not the stuff of scientific
theories.
>
<snip>
>
>Who is to say whose opinion is right? For all we know, maybe the
>Zoroastrians are the only ones with a correct understanding of the universe.
>Neither creationists nor evolutionists have a right to ban the viewpoint of
>the other side. It's only when you start impugning the viewpoints of others
>(i.e., "religion is inferior to science, christians believe in myth and
>fairy tale," or "science is against the word of god, darwinism is
>blasphemy") that you deserve not to be heard.
Science is not a democracy and not all ideas are scientific. The issue is not
whether or not creationists are entitled to their beliefs. The issue is whether
or not creationists are entitled to claim their beliefs are scientific, and
have them taught in the public schools as sceince
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Kevin Wright
> "Kevin Wright" <ke...@kgwrigh.eiomail.com> wrote in message
> news:993f80db.02040...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Very dangerously wrong, Eric
> >
> Eric Lambeth <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is the first I've heard of creationist views adversely affecting the
> spread of AIDS and other viruses, but let's assume for purposes of argument
> that what you've stated is true. In the christian view of things, the
> ultimate result of faith is eternal paradise in heaven. If you start with
> that premise, isn't a bit of suffering from AIDS complications worthwhile?
> Personally, if someone offered me a billion years of bliss as long as I took
> 20 years of misery, I'd be pretty tempted to accept the bargain. Now, I
> recognize that you probably don't believe in the concept of heaven, so for
> you, the bargain would be 20 years of misery, and then an infinity of
> nothingness. So obviously, to you, the deal would not be worth it. But
> that means that the answer all depends on your starting assumptions, doesn't
> it? Even if christianity/creationism enhances the spread of AIDS
> dramatically, you can only show that that's a bad thing if you start from
> the assumption that christianity is invalid.
So, as you now see, it's a momentous choice we have to make. Worth a
good fight would'nt you say?
Gregwrld
taught as science? Where does it say astrology should be taught in
astronomy classes? Neither creationism or its twisted sister ID are
science, so why should they be taught in a science class? Next they'll
be claiming bible history should be taught right alongside secular
history, even though we know the bible is full of bad history, just as
ID is bad science.
Greg Czebatol
Gregwrld (creationists flunk the entrance exam)
Dave
> [...]
>
> So, grow up, folks. You really have nothing to argue about. I don't even
> think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree" here; you really don't
> have anything to disagree about; you're talking about totally different
> things. Faith and science aren't incompatible; they're totally separate
> classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as valid a
>
You are wrong. The Christian viewpoint in the US is backed by an
overbearing amount of political power. Virtually no non-Christian
voices are heard. Virtually no non-Christian can get elected to public
office. Even though the US Constitution is dedicated to the separation
of Church and State this fact is barely apparent in our country. US
citizens are expected to swear on a Bible before offering testimony in
our courts.
This newsgroup is dedicated to the discussion of human origins, and
while many religious individuals may never break away from the dogma
they have been raised on; it is absurd to claim that the scientific
position is thus irrelevant. Intelligent people can examine and weigh
evidence. They can consider the strength of the evidence supporting
the scientific viewpoint. Faith and science can be harmonized to a
great degree but "intelligent design theory" remains a fairy tale.
What is it about faith that you believe should be taught in a
classroom?
Evolution remains as one of the greatest unifying scientific theories
of our time, and yet religious fundamentalists seek to have it hidden
under a burqua because the sight of it, the truth of it, offends them.
Noelie S. Alito
> In article <KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So, grow up, folks. You really have nothing to argue about. I don't even
> > think there's a need to do the "agree to disagree" here; you really don't
> > have anything to disagree about; you're talking about totally different
> > things. Faith and science aren't incompatible; they're totally separate
> > things. There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in a
> > classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as valid a
> > theory as the other.
>
> Faith and science may not be incompatible, but creationism and science
> _are_ incompatible. Take the age of the Earth as an example.
> Creationism claims this to be around 6000 years, based on an
> interpretation of an ancient religious script.
Er, *multiple* religious scripts, written by several different authors,
and selected and combined by groups of men ("committees") centuries
after they were written.
> Geology claims it is
> around 4.5 billion years, based on mountains of empirical evidence and
> well-tested scientific theories. It is absurd to say that one is just as
> valid as the other.
The qualifying phrase was "if you bring no prejudices to the table".
Exposure to the mountains of evidence has prejudiced the geologists.
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 41 years."
Eric Lambeth
and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
"Creationism isn't valid science."
Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
Yet, all these things are taught in or sponsored by schools. And, for the
most part, I think our children are the better for them.
Since when does something have to be "science" to be a valid concept to
teach to children? I stated all along that creationism isn't
scientifically provable, nor is evolution explainable by a literal reading
of the bible; that doesn't mean that one theory or the other ought to be
suppressed.
I don't subscribe to islam, mormonism, or hinduism. Yet, I took a
comparative religions class in college, and I consider the things I learned
about those religions to have broadened my viewpoint.
But, I guess I'm wrong, and that class (along with music, sports, art,
history, and business,) actually did me no good, because it's not
"scientific." And judging by how some folks seem to be interpreting the US
constitution here, I guess I probably violated the first amendment by
broadening my horizions in such a manner, too.
- Eric Lambeth
P.S. As an aside, if one theory is so vastly superior to the other,
wouldn't a comparative teaching of both reveal the obvious shortcomings of
the inferior theory? Shouldn't the adherents of the superior theory welcome
the comparison?
"Gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c8df1ee6.02040...@posting.google.com...
Eric Lambeth
omnipotent as all that? I thought the christian coalition hated Bill
Clinton in particular and the democratic party in general. If the religious
right is so powerful, how is it that congress (and the last presidential
election) were so nearly split? How is it that various groups diametrically
opposed to the conservative christian agenda (gay rights groups come to
mind, for example) are thriving and making progress in their agendas?
You know, I didn't really start out this thread by trying to promote
christianity in the classroom. I started by noting that I have learned a
lot from this board (I've been lurking for over a year) but I find it
unfortunate that so many well-educated and intelligent people find it
necessary to espouse the adult equivalent of saying "my daddy is better than
your daddy."
Saying evolution is better than creationism is exactly this. Some people
are going to disagree with you and say creationism is better than evolution.
That's no need to escalate into name calling or denigration of others (or
into paranoia about dark conspiracies controlling the american government.
ahem.)
Your academic background probably predisposes you to believe in evolution,
judging by the tone of your note. To others, an intense religious belief
based on personal experience may lead them to conclude that the bible is
literally true, and that whatever opposing viewpoints the scientific method
can offer are trifling irrelevances. And there is a whole spectrum of
viewpoints in between. So why do some folks insist that their view is the
only acceptable view, and the only one worthy of passing on to future
generations?
Rather than finding alternative viewpoints threatening, or considering them
a cause to say nasty things and spew hate against your fellow man, why not
celebrate our differences and recognize that while some folks believe in
creation, and others in evolution, we can each attempt to understand both
theories and select for ourselves which one (or both, or neither) that we
prefer to believe?
- Eric Lambeth
"Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5591d176.02040...@posting.google.com...
> "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > [...]
> You are wrong. The Christian viewpoint in the US is backed by an
Florian
> Since when does something have to be "science" to be a valid concept
> to teach to children? I stated all along that creationism isn't
> scientifically provable, nor is evolution explainable by a literal
> reading of the bible; that doesn't mean that one theory or the other
> ought to be suppressed.
I think something not being science is a perfectly valid criterion for
excluding that thing from *science classes*, don't you?
> I don't subscribe to islam, mormonism, or hinduism. Yet, I took a
> comparative religions class in college, and I consider the things I
> learned about those religions to have broadened my viewpoint.
Good. I think a course or two in comparative religion should be
compulsory as early as junior high, and in many Western countries, it
is. And *that's* where your Christian creationist "theories" should
be brought up, along with the creation accounts of other religions.
> P.S. As an aside, if one theory is so vastly superior to the other,
> wouldn't a comparative teaching of both reveal the obvious
> shortcomings of the inferior theory? Shouldn't the adherents of the
> superior theory welcome the comparison?
What other "theories" with obvious shortcomings would you like to see
taught in *science classes*? Astrology? Flat Earth? The Universe Is
A Plutonium Atom? Should we revive Phlogiston and Ether and quiz the
kids on them, and then dock them in the final exam if they haven't
realized on their own that these theories have in fact been debunked?
I have a better idea. Why don't we just teach the kids things we
*know* to be true. That'll save them from a lot of headache, make
correcting quizzes easier, *and* increase the value of their
education.
--
ego vidi stultum firma radice et maledixi pulchritudini eius statim
David Jensen
>Several of the most recent posts take issue with me for saying creationism
>and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
>be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
>"Creationism isn't valid science."
>
>Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
>History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
>Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
>
>Yet, all these things are taught in or sponsored by schools. And, for the
>most part, I think our children are the better for them.
>
>Since when does something have to be "science" to be a valid concept to
>teach to children? I stated all along that creationism isn't
>scientifically provable, nor is evolution explainable by a literal reading
>of the bible; that doesn't mean that one theory or the other ought to be
>suppressed.
Well, it depends where you want to teach it. Since creationism is the
religious dogma of a small group of out-of-the-mainstream Christians
(and different creationism is taught by some other religions), it is
very hard to find a place to teach it in US public schools. These
people, stymied by the First Amendment's prohibition on establishing
their religion, have tried _falsely_ and, for the most part, _knowingly_
to claim that it is science so it can be taught in a _science_ class.
If your goal is different from these people, it is important that you
distinguish your goal from theirs so you are not lumped in with them.
>I don't subscribe to islam, mormonism, or hinduism. Yet, I took a
>comparative religions class in college, and I consider the things I learned
>about those religions to have broadened my viewpoint.
Comparative religion is fine with me, too, but for the most part, these
people who have been trying to inflict their creationist theology on
science classes don't want their religious beliefs taught in a
comparative religion class by teachers who don't share their beliefs.
They seldom want any criticisms of their teachings to be included with
their dogma.
>But, I guess I'm wrong, and that class (along with music, sports, art,
>history, and business,) actually did me no good, because it's not
>"scientific." And judging by how some folks seem to be interpreting the US
>constitution here, I guess I probably violated the first amendment by
>broadening my horizions in such a manner, too.
Your sarcasm is wasted because your criticism misses what is being
argued about. If you are familiar with an organized effort to teach
Creationism in a comparative religion class, tell us about it.
Hardly anyone thinks that the first amendment is violated by teaching
comparative religion in a public school, but teaching it in science is a
different kettle of fish. Creationists want their myth taught in science
class so it doesn't look as much like a myth. Taught in comparative
religion it is clear that this is just one of the creation myths that
were a dime a dozen at the time and it undermines the "unique status" of
their brand of Christianity.
>P.S. As an aside, if one theory is so vastly superior to the other,
>wouldn't a comparative teaching of both reveal the obvious shortcomings of
>the inferior theory? Shouldn't the adherents of the superior theory welcome
>the comparison?
Sure, a fair comparison would show that creationism is an old myth
derived from other old myths, but that has nothing to do with science
and would appropriately be taught in a history of science class.
There is a limit to the amount of time available for science teaching in
school. Why take time away from the teaching of real science to teach
and then debunk old myths (not that this is what the Creationists are
asking for)?
R. Tang
Eric Lambeth <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What a depressing worldview. Are the evil, menacing christians really as
>omnipotent as all that?
Well, take a look at the scientific research. Then take a look at
the typical science curriculum.
It >>IS<< depressing when one of the best supported theories and
one of the key lynchpins of modern science is effectively suppressed or
watered down in so many locales. It shouldn't even be a serious
discussion, yet there are plenty of political controversies when
creationism attempts to use poltical means to get into the science
classroom.
And think about it. If something as well verified and supported as
evolution is susceptible to poltical pressure...what does that say about
the ultimate fate of more....subjective areas that you allude to>
This presupposes that the two viewpoints are essentially
equivalent, or are working off of similar axioms.
They don't. I repeat, THEY DON'T. And it's those fundamental
differences (which do NOT connote superiority) that generates the
heat--basically from the fundamental misunderstanding of those differences
by those on the creationism side.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
R. Tang
Eric Lambeth <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Several of the most recent posts take issue with me for saying creationism
>and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
>be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
>"Creationism isn't valid science."
>
>Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
>History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
>Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
>
>Yet, all these things are taught in or sponsored by schools. And, for the
>most part, I think our children are the better for them.
>
>Since when does something have to be "science" to be a valid concept to
>teach to children?
If it's going to be taught in science classes, it really OUGHT to
be science.
The whole controversy stems from the fact that scientific
creationists insist that their brand of creation IS scientific, and thus
should be taught in science classes.
If you don't understand that fundamental fact, and WHY that causes
so much problem, then I suggest that you don't understand EITHER evolution
or creationism.
>P.S. As an aside, if one theory is so vastly superior to the other,
>wouldn't a comparative teaching of both reveal the obvious shortcomings of
>the inferior theory? Shouldn't the adherents of the superior theory welcome
>the comparison?
Scientists welcome that...creationists don't.
David Jensen
>Saying evolution is better than creationism is exactly this. Some people
>are going to disagree with you and say creationism is better than evolution.
>That's no need to escalate into name calling or denigration of others (or
>into paranoia about dark conspiracies controlling the american government.
>ahem.)
In science there is no question. There is no creationist science. The
scientific evidence is consistent with the theory of evolution and
inconsistent with the myths of Genesis.
>Your academic background probably predisposes you to believe in evolution,
>judging by the tone of your note. To others, an intense religious belief
>based on personal experience may lead them to conclude that the bible is
>literally true, and that whatever opposing viewpoints the scientific method
>can offer are trifling irrelevances.
But religious faith is not scientific evidence.
>And there is a whole spectrum of
>viewpoints in between. So why do some folks insist that their view is the
>only acceptable view, and the only one worthy of passing on to future
>generations?
You are conflating all sorts of arguments in a way that obscures the
argument about science. I do not care if someone believes that the Bible
is "literally true". I do care if they use their belief to enforce
mandatory religious teachings in a science class.
>Rather than finding alternative viewpoints threatening, or considering them
>a cause to say nasty things and spew hate against your fellow man, why not
>celebrate our differences and recognize that while some folks believe in
>creation, and others in evolution, we can each attempt to understand both
>theories and select for ourselves which one (or both, or neither) that we
>prefer to believe?
Bronze age tales are just as good as scientific evidence?
Isn't moral relativism a wonderful thing. Intentional ignorance becomes
differently knowledged. Religiously motivated lies about science are
merely alternative viewpoints. Being asked to let people tell lies in
science class is celebrating differences. Sorry, I won't join this
conspiracy against civilization.
I do not believe in evolution. I do accept the evidence for it though. I
will not accept the morally bankrupt position that if someone has a
really strong feeling for their view, no matter how false or ignorant,
they are justified in imposing it on others.
Whose war against American Civilization is most insidious: al Quaeda and
the rest of the Islamic terrorists, American Fundamentalists, or
postmodern moral relativists who have no ability or willingness to
identify good things and bad things and stand up for what is good?
Rodjk
> "Kevin Wright" <ke...@kgwrigh.eiomail.com> wrote in message
> news:993f80db.02040...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > The creationist view denies ways of controlling the AIDS virus and
> > other viruses as they evolve in the human body for example.
> >
> > By denying the true history of the earth and the universe creationists
> > would deny our critical knowledge in learning from past extinctions
> > and climatic changes over millions of years - knowledge that will be
> > essential for our survival into the future.
> >
> > In short, creationists represent an evil black tide of superstition
> > and ignorance that has plagued mankind for centuries in the past and
> > would destroy our future.
> > Rgds
> >
>
> spread of AIDS and other viruses, but let's assume for purposes of argument
> that what you've stated is true.
If you accept the creationist view, or the "God will do a miracle"
what is the point of doctors?
In the christian view of things, the
> ultimate result of faith is eternal paradise in heaven. If you start with
> that premise, isn't a bit of suffering from AIDS complications worthwhile?
If your god is enough of an asshole to give you that bargain, ok.
How many "christians" would accept that offer?
> Personally, if someone offered me a billion years of bliss as long as I took
> 20 years of misery, I'd be pretty tempted to accept the bargain.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the bargain will be kept?
I mean, it sounds good. But so what?
Do you have any reason to think that it is accurate?
Now, I
> recognize that you probably don't believe in the concept of heaven, so for
> you, the bargain would be 20 years of misery, and then an infinity of
> nothingness. So obviously, to you, the deal would not be worth it. But
> that means that the answer all depends on your starting assumptions, doesn't
> it?
No. It counts on the evidence.
Care to present any?
It also indicates that you think a "christian" cannot accept
evolution.
Ever heard of the pope?
Even if christianity/creationism enhances the spread of AIDS
> dramatically, you can only show that that's a bad thing if you start from
> the assumption that christianity is invalid.
Or if you start with the presumption that the god of the christians is
good.
Or if you want to try to show that aids is a good thing.
>
> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3CAFC74...@san.rr.com...
> > Eric Lambeth wrote:
> >
> >
> > And this is the crux of the debate herein: you assert Xian Creationism
> > and Theory of Evolution can be taught side by side in the classroom
> > because "one is just as valid as the other."
> >
> > Ignoring the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution for a moment,
> > consider the impracticality of giving equal time, "side by side," to the
> > creation myths of hundreds of religions. The arguments of philosophy and
> > theology should not be part of children's science classes.
> >
> > Although you assert the debate herein---the very purpose of
> > talk.origins---is pointless, obviously you have already taken an
> > extremely controversial and minority stance in that debate.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Well, I believe I said in my original post that yes, if additional theories
> of our existence come to predominate in popular culture, they probably ought
> to be taught as well.
But in science there is only one theory. Unless you think you can
present a different one (other than evolution).
I understand that the "theory of Santa Claus" is pretty popular in
this culture. Should that be taught also? I mean, it is popular.
It just so happens that evolution and christian
> creationism are the only mainstream viewpoints at present.
I note how you use the word "mainstream" instead of "scientific".
I wonder why?
Both are totally
> different approaches to explaining our existence, but both are important to
> many people in their daily lives. (Actually, the religious view is probably
> more important to many people who use it as a daily motivation/inspiration
> in their lives; not too many people derive meaningful inspiration from the
> theory of evolution, I'd wager.) I see no reason why the adherents of one
> philosophy should be able to silence the adherents of another, short of
> objective proof that one theory is wrong, which of course is impossible.
How many churches teach evolution from the pulpit?
Science teaches only the scientific view. If you have another, lets
see it.
Otherwise, why should science teach any viewpoint other than that of
science?
>
> As an aside, I don't really think the first amendment is material in a
> debate about objective truth; just because it was ratified by the founding
> fathers 200 years ago.
Interesting that you don't see the 1st amendment playing a part in the
discussion.
>Even assuming that we have interpreted the principle
> of separation of church and state as they intended, do you think the
> founding fatheres were the last authoritative word on everything?
The Supreme Court has that last word. You know that.
(I know Eric from work. I am aware that he knows about the Supreme
Court)
Do you
> believe that blacks are three-fifths of a person? To put it another way, if
> the first amendment said "thou shalt teach religion in schools, and all
> persons shall be compelled to worship christ, and all propnents of evolution
> shall be burned at the stake," would you throw up your hands and say "oh
> well, that's what the constitution says, I guess I'll believe in
> christianity"?
It does not say that, so it is not an issue from a legal standpoint.
BTW, the legal standpoint is the only issue, as creationism has not
had scientific backing for well over 100 years.
And I doubt that even an ignorant ass like Sciala would view blacks as
3/5th of a person, at least he would not express those views in
public.
>
>
> "Florian" <peta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:m31ydsg...@tiainen.domain.invalid...
> > "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> > > Creationists believe the bible is the divine and inspired word of
> > > god, and many believe the story of creation is literally true.
> > > Whether you believe that or not, there's no way to prove or disprove
> > > it scientifically.
> >
> > This is not so. It's easy to show "scientifically" that the Creation
> > account in Genesis cannot be literally true.
>
> Only if you assume various scientific principles to be true to start with.
You know that science does not recognize "miracles". So science
excludes 'ghod" along with "leprecauns".
> If you believe in your heart that the bible is literally true, and that is
> your starting point, then it's easy to show "scientifically" that evolution
> can not be true.
Only you want to believe that the god of the bible is an outright
liar.
Want to convince the christians of that?
Try this:
If you believe in your heart that the "The Cat in the Hat" is
literally true, and that is your starting point, then it's easy to
show "scientifically" that evolution can not be true.
Feel any sympathy for that viewpoint?
Scientifically speaking, of course.
>
>
> > Christianity and Creationism are two different beasts. Scientists
> > generally have no quarrel with Christians, any more than than with
> > Shintoists or Hindus.
>
> From reading the messages on this board I have not discerned a meaningful
> difference.
There are many christians who accept the finding of science.
Starting with the pope. Want to argue with him?
>
>
> > This is where I finally agree with you. Unfortunately there is a
> > movement to push a Christian religious agenda in the guise of science
> > into public schools, and this requires that the appearance of
> > something that can be called "creationist science" in fundraising
> > parties must be upheld.
> >
> > > I once heard a theory that God had created things such as the stars
> > > and dinosaur bones and put them out there just to test us and see
> > > who would use these as excuses to disbelieve the holy word; they
> > > were mere illusions or props and there were actually no stars,
> > > dinosaurs, etc. I don't subscribe to that theory, but how can you
> > > disprove that scientifically? You can't. I defy any scientist to
> > > disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of an
> > > omnipotent being.
> >
> > Yes, this is the final Deus ex machina foxhole of all creationists.
> > The argument is not encouraged on t.o, because, as you said, there is
> > no way to refute it, and it tends to kill any further discussion.
> > Fortunately, any creationist retreating into this hole pretty much has
> > to stay in it until his rations run out, because if he pops his head
> > out again, he's liable to get killfiled by anybody involved in the
> > preceding debate.
> >
> > > Yet, every day, more and more time is spent crafting words to send
> > > to this message board to disprove the other side, or worse, to call
> > > them nasty names and pick fights.
Creationist who claim to have science supporting them are lying
fuckheads.
Simple enough?
Want to bet I can show that claim to be true?
I am serious here. Want to bet????
> >
> > Well, some people enjoy that. Do what we do, score them down, or
> > score down the threads.
>
>
> Ok, I can see that for some people, rowdy arguments and name calling are a
> fun way to spend a weekend.
Since I know that is what you are doing, I won't get too inflamed
here.
Pot=kettle.
If you take many of these posts at face value,
> people seem to be getting violently angry with each other, trying to prove
> their points to others who do not subscribe to the same philosophy. My
> point was that there's no reason these two viewpoints can't peacefully
> co-exist side by side, with a tacit recognition that the answer you believe
> in simply depends on your starting assumptions.
Keep religious views out of science.
Easy enough?
>
> > > There's no reason why you can't have both taught side by side in a
> > > classroom - if you bring no prejudices to the table, one is just as
> > > valid a theory as the other.
> >
> > If you're a 3-year-old child, yes, both theories seem equally valid.
> > If you've actually got experience living in the real world, you'll
> > find that you can't really dismiss evolution as "just another theory".
>
> I know plenty of intelligent adults who are devout creationists.
Know any who are not ignorant about science and biology?
Know any who are not creationist ONLY because of their religious
upbringing (or their ignorance)?
Any???????
Inteligent does not mean educated in the field at hand, nor does it
mean honest.
>
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:uavsjig...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Eric Lambeth <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > We most certainly do have a right to ban sectarian religious viewpoints
> from
> > being taught in public schools instead of actual science. Like it or not,
> as
> > much as you'd like to pretend you're above this debate, you've just stated
> a
> > position that puts you firmly aligned with the creationist camp.
> >
>
> First of all, you do NOT have that right, any more than some religious
> zealot has the right to demand that his world view and no others be forced
> down the throats of others. You may not subscribe to the creationist
> theory; that doesn't mean that it's not a meaningful concept for millions
> of others. The same can be said about the theory evolution.
Adam means you put forth a brand of ignorance that supports the
creationist: That there is legitimate scientific support for
creationism. There is none.
>
> Secondly, I tried very hard not to express my personal views about our
> existence, because I'm really not trying to continue the pointless argument
> in the vein of "my theory is better than your theory." From my words, you
> have no idea if I 'm a creationist or not.
The point is, in science classes science should be taught.
>
>
> "xyzzy" <xy...@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3cb00e66.62162204@news...
> > "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Who is to say whose opinion is right?
> >
> > I am. And I say your opinion is garbage. Good day.
> >
>
> Again, I didn't even express my personal views. I condemned those on both
> sides who would unilaterally silence the opinions of others with whom the
> disagree. Of which behavior, you have provided a perfect example; I notice
> you didn't even state a coherent position of your own but simply waded in to
> slander others.
If ANYONE on the creationist side has anything of value to science to
say, I for one would love to hear it. That all they put forth is lies
and misinformation is of no suprise to most here at T.O.
Don't believe me? We can meet to discuss it. Bring forth the very best
info you think the creationist have, dealing with science. Any of it.
I can show you in a few minutes that it is flawed.
So don't wonder why people are pissed at the lies spread by the
creationist.
And that many people, me included, are not willing to listen to much
of it before we start throwing manure.
>
>
>
> "9for5" <9f...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:9for5-132AD7....@enews.newsguy.com...
> > In article <KZOr8.22139$nt1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Eric Lambeth" <elam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Faith and science may not be incompatible, but creationism and science
> > _are_ incompatible. Take the age of the Earth as an example.
> > Creationism claims this to be around 6000 years, based on an
> > interpretation of an ancient religious script. Geology claims it is
> > around 4.5 billion years, based on mountains of empirical evidence and
> > well-tested scientific theories. It is absurd to say that one is just as
> > valid as the other.
>
> There *are* theories which reconcile the two viewpoints, although I grant
> you, they require quite a bit of intellectual contortion.
Bullshit. There are no science theories, only ad hoc rationizations.
You think there is science, show it. You will be the first.
My statement that
> one is just as valid as the other, though, wasn't really speaking to the
> compatibility of the two theories. I was more trying to say that you can't
> prove one over the other without settting up your starting assumptions in
> the first place to favor the theory you prefer.
One is science. Which has given us spaceflight, computers and Plymouth
Prowlers. The other is fantasy.
You want to prove evolution
> over creation? Start with the scientific method.
Done that 150 years ago. Try taking a biology class.
(BTW Eric, is this you or your brother posting? I am curious)
> You want to prove
> creation over evolution? Start with a literal reading of the bible.
> Neither method proves anything, except to reveal your starting biases.
Cast out any demons lately?
The bible is the drug induced ramblings of a bunch of sheep fuckers.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I did step over the line a bit with my remarks about a "bunch of six
> year olds" and to "grow up, folks." I was trying to enhance the dialouge a
> bit and those remarks probably served only to incite the kind of thing I was
> complaining about. I guess I got a bit carried away with myself.
> For those remarks, I do apologize.
I figure this is one of your trolls, unless it is your brother
posting.
Either way, I expect either a better troll or for you to keep him away
from the computer.
Rodjk #613
>
> - Eric Lambeth
Mark VandeWettering
> Several of the most recent posts take issue with me for saying creationism
> and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
> be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
> "Creationism isn't valid science."
>
> Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
> History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
> Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
>
> Yet, all these things are taught in or sponsored by schools. And, for the
> most part, I think our children are the better for them.
The thing you are missing is that Creationism is religion. Religion cannot
be taught in state funded schools.
> Since when does something have to be "science" to be a valid concept to
> teach to children?
If you want to abuse your children by teaching them nonsense, by all means,
teach them all you like. But you don't get to extend that right to other
taxpayer's children.
> I stated all along that creationism isn't
> scientifically provable, nor is evolution explainable by a literal reading
> of the bible; that doesn't mean that one theory or the other ought to be
> suppressed.
Nobody is supressing creationism. It is religion however, and as such
unsuitable subject matter for public schools. Don't like it? Tell it to
the Constitution...
> I don't subscribe to islam, mormonism, or hinduism. Yet, I took a
> comparative religions class in college, and I consider the things I learned
> about those religions to have broadened my viewpoint.
Such classes are in fact entirely legal within the public school system.
That is entirely different than the dishonest practice of teaching religion
as science.
> But, I guess I'm wrong, and that class (along with music, sports, art,
> history, and business,) actually did me no good, because it's not
> "scientific." And judging by how some folks seem to be interpreting the US
> constitution here, I guess I probably violated the first amendment by
> broadening my horizions in such a manner, too.
Apparently all those classes didn't teach you clear thinking, or
an understanding of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all of
us by the Constitution.
> - Eric Lambeth
>
> P.S. As an aside, if one theory is so vastly superior to the other,
> wouldn't a comparative teaching of both reveal the obvious shortcomings of
> the inferior theory?
It does.
> Shouldn't the adherents of the superior theory welcome
> the comparison?
I'd really rather my children's school concentrated on teaching as well as
they can the theories of all that _is_ known about nature, rather than
shooting down the far greater amount of utter crap that is peddled as
"alternative" views.
If by some miracle you aren't just a troll, you are just a stealth
creationist, attempting to couch the debate in terms of "fairness" rather
that under the terms of scientific debate. While everyone may be
entitled to whatever views they desire, that doesn't make them all
equally valid. Such intellectual relativism is unproductive.
--
main(){char*p="vandewettering.net";printf("\33[?38h\33\14\35\35(z)O\"oO!kHa(F "
"yFy,D!aDj+D\"j*](q])q+Dz,D*bDb)J\"\177&G*b\"_b F)zFq!I(qQ\"{Q!mIa E yEy#O!aOn"
"\"M\"{D(pD y%%Uy\\(z)O\35*b6Ib3M)zMt4GgN(fE#a2C'y/_(|P)kMy0AzN*bNb,W)zWq-P(k."
"F t1Ut\\(p5@)rRz6I*bI\35+w!@\37mark@%s\35*~@\37http://%s\33\3",p,p);}
George Acton
>
> Several of the most recent posts take issue with me for saying creationism
> and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
> be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
> "Creationism isn't valid science."
Astrology is an "equally valid viewpoint", but it's inappropriate to
teach teach it in science classes. One argument for this is on the
merits. Another, related to the argument from authority, is that
what's appropriate for introductory academic courses is what the
consensus of scholars in that field accept. Effectively no
working scientists in the field accept astrology. Another is
that early courses should be a preparation for courses a student
might want to take later, and astrology is not part of more
advanced courses.
All these arguments against astrology apply more strongly to
Creation, because astrology involves no First Amendment Issues.
And as an aside, proponents of astrology don't attack the honesty
and good faith of conventional scientists.
> Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
> History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
> Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
>
> Yet, all these things are taught in or sponsored by schools. And, for the
> most part, I think our children are the better for them.
The topic isn't whether to teach religious doctrine in those
classes.
> Since when does something have to be "science" to be a valid concept to
> teach to children? I stated all along that creationism isn't
> scientifically provable, nor is evolution explainable by a literal reading
> of the bible; that doesn't mean that one theory or the other ought to be
> suppressed.
The word "suppressed" is an innacurate characterizetion of the
situation. No one is trying to censor the Bible or the expression
of a particular interpretation of it. The issue is whether
governments should promote a particular religion.
> I don't subscribe to islam, mormonism, or hinduism. Yet, I took a
> comparative religions class in college, and I consider the things I learned
> about those religions to have broadened my viewpoint.
No one in this group has objected to presenting Creationism in a
comparative religion course.
> But, I guess I'm wrong, and that class (along with music, sports, art,
> history, and business,) actually did me no good, because it's not
> "scientific." And judging by how some folks seem to be interpreting the US
> constitution here, I guess I probably violated the first amendment by
> broadening my horizions in such a manner, too.
You might have broadened your horizins by reading the Bill of Rights.
Individuals can't violate the First Amendment; only governments can.
> P.S. As an aside, if one theory is so vastly superior to the other,
> wouldn't a comparative teaching of both reveal the obvious shortcomings of
> the inferior theory? Shouldn't the adherents of the superior theory welcome
> the comparison?
A comparative teaching of both is unlikely in the present situation
of most public schools, and is the last thing proponents of
Creationism want or expect. As I mentioned in a previous post, the
evidence for Creationism can be presented by reading opening
passages of Genesis. This takes a few minutes. The evidence for
conventional chronology, common descent and evolutionary mechanisms
would take weeks. Some of this material is substantive geology
and genetics that should be taught. Creationists cold well complain
that their theory isn't getting "equal time".
"Adherents" isn't the right term, since it implies religious
committment. But no, people who think evolution is a correct
theory of nature don't want the comparison made in public schools.
An honest comparison would demolish Creationism as science, which
would hold it up to ridicule. And no reasonable person wants to
ridicule someone's religion. But Creationism isn't a part of
conventional science, and it is dishonest to teach children that
it is.
--George Acton
Peter Palmieri
<snip>
>
> Rather than finding alternative viewpoints threatening, or
> considering them a cause to say nasty things and spew hate against
> your fellow man, why not celebrate our differences and recognize
> that while some folks believe in creation, and others in evolution,
> we can each attempt to understand both theories and select for
> ourselves which one (or both, or neither) that we prefer to believe?
>
> - Eric Lambeth
>
Eric,
Because the forces that promote creationism are about as interested in
celebrating diversity as, well, let's avoid incendiary analogies. The point
is that this movement is political in nature, and can pretty easily be
called a conspiracy. Their goals have nothing to do with diversity, or live
and let live, but with overthrowing the way science is taught in the US, at
least the way biology is taught.
The fact is that it is wrong for this group to attempt to dictate to me that
my children should be taught a sectarian religious ideology as science, in a
science class. My respect for their right of conscience or acknowledgement
of their different beliefs has nothing to do with the core issue here, which
is their attempt to hijack science education in favor of religious beliefs.
Indeed, it's worse than that. Creationism is only one front of what many
fundamentalists perceive as an ongoing battle between God and anti-God
forces. Fundamentalists have had minimal success on the national political
scene, as you remark in another post (although I think it is clear that
their impact is greater than their numbers), and generally the more explicit
their message the more easily it is soundly rejected by most people. That's
why they've learned to mask their intentions and attack at local levels,
where the actions of a few dedicated people can have a hugely
disproportionate impact.
I've always thought it's wildly ironic that fundamentalists routinely accuse
scientists of engaging in a conspiracy (of course, I understand that you are
not saying this), while in fact the conspiracy is all on their side.
Projection? The best defense is a good offense? What these folks lack in
scientific knowledge, or integrity, they certainly make up for in
obfuscatory rhetoric.
Peter Palmieri
xyzzy
>unfortunate that so many well-educated and intelligent people find it
>necessary to espouse the adult equivalent of saying "my daddy is better than
>your daddy."
>
>Saying evolution is better than creationism is exactly this.
What should we say? That evolution and creationism have equal merit?
Having an open mind is good but having it so open that your brains
fall out? Humanity doesn't advance by giving equal merit to every
crackpot idea. If you claim that calling creationism a stupid idea is
name calling, what is it that you are doing by saying that what I am
doing is equivalent to childish behaviour? I find your pitifully
contradictory new-age-politically-correct self-righteousness even more
offensive than anything coming from the mouth of a fundementalist
creationist.
George Acton
>
> What a depressing worldview. Are the evil, menacing christians really as
> omnipotent as all that? I thought the christian coalition hated Bill
> Clinton in particular and the democratic party in general. If the religious
> right is so powerful, how is it that congress (and the last presidential
> election) were so nearly split? How is it that various groups diametrically
> opposed to the conservative christian agenda (gay rights groups come to
> mind, for example) are thriving and making progress in their agendas?
There certainly is an organized effort to subsert the First
Amendment by injecting religious doctrine into secular areas,
including puglic school science classes. See:
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html
> You know, I didn't really start out this thread by trying to promote
> christianity in the classroom. I started by noting that I have learned a
> lot from this board (I've been lurking for over a year) but I find it
> unfortunate that so many well-educated and intelligent people find it
> necessary to espouse the adult equivalent of saying "my daddy is better than
> your daddy."
>
> Saying evolution is better than creationism is exactly this. Some people
> are going to disagree with you and say creationism is better than evolution.
> That's no need to escalate into name calling or denigration of others (or
> into paranoia about dark conspiracies controlling the american government.
> ahem.)
Science is often winner-take-all. It isn't like democratic politics
where people try to arrive at good compromises. Some well-meaning
people have argued for "equal time" for Creationism in science
classes by analogy with the balance that public media are supposed
to show on political issues. This isn't the way science operates.
When there are two theories that make contradictory predictions,
someone carries out the appropriate experiment, and one theory is
discarded.
This doesn't mean Creationism isn't a perfectly good religious
doctrine. It's just that if we treat it as a scientific statement
about the physical workd, the predictions don't check out
> Your academic background probably predisposes you to believe in evolution,
> judging by the tone of your note. To others, an intense religious belief
> based on personal experience may lead them to conclude that the bible is
> literally true, and that whatever opposing viewpoints the scientific method
> can offer are trifling irrelevances. And there is a whole spectrum of
> viewpoints in between. So why do some folks insist that their view is the
> only acceptable view, and the only one worthy of passing on to future
> generations?
You are attacking a strawman. It certainly isn't the only
"acceptable" religious view. But it happens to be the only one
with general scientific support. The fact that we don't teach
a relibious doctrine in public schools doesn't mean we don't
consider it "worthy of passing on". But thaat "passing on" has
traditionally been carried out without governmental support.
> Rather than finding alternative viewpoints threatening, or considering them
> a cause to say nasty things and spew hate against your fellow man, why not
> celebrate our differences and recognize that while some folks believe in
> creation, and others in evolution, we can each attempt to understand both
> theories and select for ourselves which one (or both, or neither) that we
> prefer to believe?
Who's spewing hatred? The Intelligent Design Creationists claim
that scientist deny the evidence for design because they want to
promote atheism. That certainly stirs up animosity against
science.
--George Acton
xyzzy
>Several of the most recent posts take issue with me for saying creationism
>and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
>be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
>"Creationism isn't valid science."
>
>Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
>History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
>Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
Completely missed the point, did you? 1) Religion is already taught in
schools 2) Neither football nor art is taught in science classes or as
science 3) The agenda of creationists is to have their particular
religion to be taught alongside science proper.
Take some time away from chanting "oh, why can't we all get along" and
get your facts straight. You might realize that you are not the only
smart guy in the entire world.
Richard Harter
wrote:
Yes he is. Nobody else in the world is smart. Of he isn't actually
..
>
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Inside of every thin person is a fat person waiting
to emerge.
Emmit Svenson
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> After reading quite a few of the messages on here, I have learned a lot of
> interesting theories and opinions.
>
> However, I have also read more than my fair share of rudeness, backbiting,
> and immature hostility, on both the "creationist" side and the
> "evolutionist" side. This strikes me as silly, because the two viewpoints
> aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive.
That's Usenet for you. As I'm sure you're aware, this depersonalizing
text-only medium has an inflammatory effect on debate.
That does not mean that the debate should not take place. It's nice of
you to remind us to be civil, but it's silly of you to say that our
arguements here are silly, given that talk.origins is the place set
aside for people to, well, talk about our origins.
> I defy
> any scientist to disprove that all creation is not the elaborate ruse of an
> omnipotent being.
I can't prove that the universe wasn't sneezed out of the nose of the
Great Green Arkenseizure . . . but I don't want that belief taught to
my children in science class as a valid alternative to the truth.
Adam Marczyk
> What a depressing worldview. Are the evil, menacing christians really as
> omnipotent as all that? I thought the christian coalition hated Bill
> Clinton in particular and the democratic party in general. If the religious
> right is so powerful, how is it that congress (and the last presidential
> election) were so nearly split? How is it that various groups diametrically
> opposed to the conservative christian agenda (gay rights groups come to
> mind, for example) are thriving and making progress in their agendas?
>
> You know, I didn't really start out this thread by trying to promote
> christianity in the classroom. I started by noting that I have learned a
> lot from this board (I've been lurking for over a year) but I find it
> unfortunate that so many well-educated and intelligent people find it
> necessary to espouse the adult equivalent of saying "my daddy is better than
> your daddy."
>
> Saying evolution is better than creationism is exactly this. Some people
> are going to disagree with you and say creationism is better than evolution.
Yes, and then we actually examine the facts and find out which side's case holds
up; as it turns out, creationism fails several elementary tests for
falsification. Objective reality is not decided by majority vote. I refuse to
accept that there is no such thing as truth and anything anyone believes in is
okay.
[snip]
Dave
>
> What a depressing worldview. Are the evil, menacing christians really as
> omnipotent as all that? I thought the christian coalition hated Bill
> Clinton in particular and the democratic party in general. If the religious
> right is so powerful, how is it that congress (and the last presidential
> election) were so nearly split? How is it that various groups diametrically
> opposed to the conservative christian agenda (gay rights groups come to
> mind, for example) are thriving and making progress in their agendas?
In the US the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans are
Christians. How many elected officials are not Christians? Would you
guess perhaps 0.25 percent ?
> You know, I didn't really start out this thread by trying to promote
> christianity in the classroom. I started by noting that I have learned
> a lot from this board (I've been lurking for over a year) but I find it
> unfortunate that so many well-educated and intelligent people find it
> necessary to espouse the adult equivalent of saying "my daddy is better
> than your daddy." Saying evolution is better than creationism is exactly
> this. [...]
Please explain why it is that, in your mind, beliefs with no evidence
to back them up are equal to beliefs that are established by a
preponderance of scientific evidence?
Eric Lambeth
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnab2enn.1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
> Eric Lambeth wrote:
<snip>
>
> The thing you are missing is that Creationism is religion. Religion
cannot
> be taught in state funded schools.
>
All right, now we're getting somewhere! The fundamental objections to
teaching the theory of creationism, in paralell with the theory of
evolution, seem to be 1) that creationism isn't science, and 2) that
creationism is religion.
So let's look at the following hypothetical:
A teacher walks into a classroom and says "class, we are now going to learn
the theory of evolution. This theory is what a majority of american
scientists believe to be the case." Then, we teach evolution theory for an
hour. Then, the teacher says, "ok class, new subject! We will no longer be
talking about science. We will be talking about philosophy. The following
theory, called creationism, is what a majority of americans believe to be
the case, PHILOSOPHICALLY." Then they teach the theory of creationism for
an hour.
How can a reasonable person possibly object to that? You haven't called
creationism "science," in fact you've stated an explicit scientific bias in
favor of evolution, yet you've given a philosophical orientation to an
alternative approach that millions of people believe to be an important (or
indeed, the MOST important) factor in their lives.
The only possible objection, and the one several folks seem to have fallen
back on when other arguments have failed, is "well, that's against the US
constitution." But as various people have noted, the constiution was never
intended to ban any reference to any diety in any public discourse. There
is prayer in congress, for example, and at the time of the writing of the
constitution, prayer in schools predominated. The principle of separation
of church and state simply meant that no religious figure (i.e., the pope,
the head of the anglican church, etc.) is constitutionally empowered with
governmental authority. Like the other amendments, this is a response to a
specific abuse of power under the reign of King George in 1776, who did
nasty things like quartering troops in people's houses and intertwining the
heirarchy of the Anglican church with that of the state. A reading of the
early Federalist literature will nowhere suggest that the word "god" is
outlawed from ever appearing in state sponsored speech. And even if it were
so, as I've pointed out before, the US constitution, while a great
document, is by no means the universal truth. Among other things, it at
one time counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and at another time banned the
sale of liquor, neither of which were particularly good concepts, in my
humble opinion. If you're interested in scientific proof and logical
theorems, the US constitution seems like an odd document to quote as a
source. If the first amendment said "There is no such thing as evolution.
Hooray for creationism. Jesus is lord. To think otherwise is illegal." would
you sit back and say "ah, well, that settles it, I guess I believe in
creationism"? Of course not. Introducing first amendment objections to
creationism not only is a fallacious argument legally, but as to determining
what theory of origin is true or not, it is completely irrelevant.
Finally, I'd like to address those who keep insisting that I'm a troll, or
what was it -- a sneaky creationist conspirator, posting all this text just
to keep you on your toes? Not that it really matters to me if you think I'm
any of those things or something much worse, but I assure you, I have made
no firm decision whether I believe in creationism or evolution, which is
why I lurk on this message board and have enjoyed the stimulating
conversations, except of course when punctuated by insults and backbiting.
I personally always held an affinity for the theory of theistic evolution,
but alas, that's probably more due to my nature of wanting to compromise and
have everyone just along, rather than of a particularly well-informed
joining of the two theories.
I really enjoy hearing the viewpoints of others, and I find this forum great
for that, but as you may have guessed, I hate being unpleasant to others and
getting rude comments in return. I'm probably not cut out to be a big
usenet-discusser, because the neagtivity that these discussions always
seems to spiral into leaves me cold. Someone mentioned that the Internet
really lends itself to hateful flame wars more than in-person conversation,
and I think that's unfortunate but absolutely true, to my detriment.
Although I feel some obligation to keep up with this thread since I started
it, I probably won't post again, at least for a long while -- I just dislike
the negativity of arguing so much. I should have known better, I suppose,
but I didn't expect such a backlash to my original post.
Anyway, in truth, the theory of evolution appeals to me more than
creationism intellectually; it certainly seems to be a more cohesive and
robust theory, at least to my mind. So But, many of my friends claim to
have experienced a touching, deeply personal revelation of jesus christ in
their own lives which proves to them his existence and the truth of the
bible. I have never experienced such a thing, but I don't believe my
friends are lying to me, so I don't discount the possibility that such a
thing is certainly possible. My great conundrum is, if I believe in
creationism and the true answer is evolution, it's no big deal. If I
believe in evolution and it turns out creationism was right... well, I don't
fancy spending a few billion years in hell.
The biggest problem I have with creationism is the same one I have with
evolution, though: Both assume an inexplicable starting point.
Creationists can't explain where god came from. Evolutionists (or perhaps
the correct word is cosmologists) can't explain where the big bang came
from. To me, since both theories start from such a meaningless,
inexplicable starting point, neither is yet proven superior. As I keep
saying, you can prove anything if you choose your starting assumptions
properly. So I will continue to research, and learn. I'm currently
working my way through Alan Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" based upon a
recommendation on this board, and am finding it enlightening in this field.
I didn't mention any of this before because I'm sure no one really cares
what my personal opinion on creaitonism/evolution is, and it wasn't material
to the debate. I only offer this now because I value the insights I
occasionally glean from this message board and I hope that by providing some
biography I can convince you I'm not "out to get you" or secretly promoting
an agenda, be it creationist or otherwise, and that I can thereby increase
the ratio of useful, constructive information to the kind of insults and
jeers that seem to pop up whenever someone suspects I am a *gasp*
creationist.
- Eric Lambeth
David Jensen
>All right, now we're getting somewhere! The fundamental objections to
>teaching the theory of creationism, in paralell with the theory of
>evolution, seem to be 1) that creationism isn't science, and 2) that
>creationism is religion.
It's all downhill from here, unfortunately.
>So let's look at the following hypothetical:
>
>A teacher walks into a classroom and says "class, we are now going to learn
>the theory of evolution. This theory is what a majority of american
>scientists believe to be the case." Then, we teach evolution theory for an
>hour. Then, the teacher says, "ok class, new subject! We will no longer be
>talking about science. We will be talking about philosophy. The following
>theory, called creationism, is what a majority of americans believe to be
>the case, PHILOSOPHICALLY." Then they teach the theory of creationism for
>an hour.
It's not a 'philosophical theory' and it is not the majority philosophy
in the United States. It is purely religious.
>How can a reasonable person possibly object to that?
It's not a 'philosophical theory' and it is not the majority philosophy
in the United States. It is purely religious.
>You haven't called
>creationism "science," in fact you've stated an explicit scientific bias in
>favor of evolution, yet you've given a philosophical orientation to an
>alternative approach that millions of people believe to be an important (or
>indeed, the MOST important) factor in their lives.
Religion is not philosophy, although they share a number of salient
features.
>The only possible objection, and the one several folks seem to have fallen
>back on when other arguments have failed, is "well, that's against the US
>constitution." But as various people have noted, the constiution was never
>intended to ban any reference to any diety in any public discourse. There
>is prayer in congress, for example, and at the time of the writing of the
>constitution, prayer in schools predominated.
Teaching Creationism is definitely a violation of the Establishment
Clause. If you have a problems with that fact, take it up with the US
Supreme Court. Their opinion is law, even on the occasions that they are
misguided.
> The principle of separation
>of church and state simply meant that no religious figure (i.e., the pope,
>the head of the anglican church, etc.) is constitutionally empowered with
>governmental authority.
No. Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html for an
extensive discussion of Edwards v. Aguillard.
> Like the other amendments, this is a response to a
>specific abuse of power under the reign of King George in 1776, who did
>nasty things like quartering troops in people's houses and intertwining the
>heirarchy of the Anglican church with that of the state. A reading of the
>early Federalist literature will nowhere suggest that the word "god" is
>outlawed from ever appearing in state sponsored speech. And even if it were
>so, as I've pointed out before, the US constitution, while a great
>document, is by no means the universal truth. Among other things, it at
>one time counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and at another time banned the
>sale of liquor, neither of which were particularly good concepts, in my
>humble opinion. If you're interested in scientific proof and logical
>theorems, the US constitution seems like an odd document to quote as a
>source. If the first amendment said "There is no such thing as evolution.
>Hooray for creationism. Jesus is lord. To think otherwise is illegal." would
>you sit back and say "ah, well, that settles it, I guess I believe in
>creationism"? Of course not. Introducing first amendment objections to
>creationism not only is a fallacious argument legally, but as to determining
>what theory of origin is true or not, it is completely irrelevant.
You appear to know nothing about constitutional law in the United
States. Learn something more about it before saying any more silly
things.
>Finally, I'd like to address those who keep insisting that I'm a troll, or
>what was it -- a sneaky creationist conspirator, posting all this text just
>to keep you on your toes? Not that it really matters to me if you think I'm
>any of those things or something much worse, but I assure you, I have made
>no firm decision whether I believe in creationism or evolution, which is
>why I lurk on this message board and have enjoyed the stimulating
>conversations, except of course when punctuated by insults and backbiting.
A sophmoric posting style tends to bring that out in other
correspondents.
>I personally always held an affinity for the theory of theistic evolution,
>but alas, that's probably more due to my nature of wanting to compromise and
>have everyone just along, rather than of a particularly well-informed
>joining of the two theories.
Then why such incendiary commentary?
Mark VandeWettering
>> The thing you are missing is that Creationism is religion. Religion cannot
>> be taught in state funded schools.
> All right, now we're getting somewhere! The fundamental objections to
> teaching the theory of creationism, in paralell with the theory of
> evolution, seem to be 1) that creationism isn't science, and 2) that
> creationism is religion.
Yes.
> So let's look at the following hypothetical:
>
> A teacher walks into a classroom and says "class, we are now going to learn
> the theory of evolution. This theory is what a majority of american
> scientists believe to be the case." Then, we teach evolution theory for an
> hour. Then, the teacher says, "ok class, new subject! We will no longer be
> talking about science. We will be talking about philosophy. The following
> theory, called creationism, is what a majority of americans believe to be
> the case, PHILOSOPHICALLY." Then they teach the theory of creationism for
> an hour.
>
> How can a reasonable person possibly object to that?
It isn't clear that schools should be in the business of telling
their students what their majority religious beliefs are. The SCOTUS
has pretty consistently held that even the appearance of state sponsored
religion is pretty shaky ground to stand on.
And of course no creationist organization are lobbying for the free expression
of philosophical ideas, they want their particular brand to be peddled as
science.
> You haven't called
> creationism "science," in fact you've stated an explicit scientific bias in
> favor of evolution, yet you've given a philosophical orientation to an
> alternative approach that millions of people believe to be an important (or
> indeed, the MOST important) factor in their lives.
There are many things which are important which are neither a) science
nor b) anything the government or its agencies should work at promoting.
Creationism is not "alternative science": it isn't science at all. As for
bias, people should have biases, especially when it keeps them from believing
obviously false things, such as creationism being scientifically based.
> The only possible objection, and the one several folks seem to have fallen
> back on when other arguments have failed, is "well, that's against the US
> constitution." But as various people have noted, the constiution was never
> intended to ban any reference to any diety in any public discourse.
Of course it wasn't. People can freely discuss creationism as much as they
they like. They can even call it science if they want. They are wrong, but
they have a Constitutional right to do so. What they do not have the right
to do is to use state sponsored schools are indoctrination centers for their
own peculiar brand of Biblical literalism.
> There
> is prayer in congress, for example, and at the time of the writing of the
> constitution, prayer in schools predominated. The principle of separation
> of church and state simply meant that no religious figure (i.e., the pope,
> the head of the anglican church, etc.) is constitutionally empowered with
> governmental authority.
The SCOTUS disagrees with that interpretation, as would the founders.
> Like the other amendments, this is a response to a
> specific abuse of power under the reign of King George in 1776, who did
> nasty things like quartering troops in people's houses and intertwining the
> heirarchy of the Anglican church with that of the state. A reading of the
> early Federalist literature will nowhere suggest that the word "god" is
> outlawed from ever appearing in state sponsored speech.
Nor is it now. Our President seems to use it rather often in his speeches.
> And even if it were
> so, as I've pointed out before, the US constitution, while a great
> document, is by no means the universal truth.
It is amazing the degree to which you argue on one hand for freedom
of discourse, yet on the other hand would blithely dismiss the
document that helped define and protect the rights of freedom of
speech and religion for all Americans.
> Among other things, it at
> one time counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and at another time banned the
> sale of liquor, neither of which were particularly good concepts, in my
> humble opinion. If you're interested in scientific proof and logical
> theorems, the US constitution seems like an odd document to quote as a
> source. If the first amendment said "There is no such thing as evolution.
> Hooray for creationism. Jesus is lord. To think otherwise is illegal." would
> you sit back and say "ah, well, that settles it, I guess I believe in
> creationism"? Of course not. Introducing first amendment objections to
> creationism not only is a fallacious argument legally, but as to determining
> what theory of origin is true or not, it is completely irrelevant.
It seems rather odd to seek to undermine the 1st Amendment to protect liars
and charletans.
Pascal's wager only works if you happen to stumble into worshipping the
right God. You can't even get two Christians to agree what their religion
is, it seems hard to determine what God you should really be worshipping.
> The biggest problem I have with creationism is the same one I have with
> evolution, though: Both assume an inexplicable starting point.
Evolution certainly does not.
> Creationists can't explain where god came from. Evolutionists (or perhaps
> the correct word is cosmologists) can't explain where the big bang came
> from.
That's cosmology/astrophysics, not evolution. Different fields, doncha know?
> To me, since both theories start from such a meaningless,
> inexplicable starting point, neither is yet proven superior.
The fact that your own limitations keep you from understanding something is
probably not of immense concern to anyone else, much less the universe.
> As I keep
> saying, you can prove anything if you choose your starting assumptions
> properly.
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence. Proofs are
immune to unreasonable challenges, science never can be.
> So I will continue to research, and learn. I'm currently
> working my way through Alan Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" based upon a
> recommendation on this board, and am finding it enlightening in this field.
> I didn't mention any of this before because I'm sure no one really cares
> what my personal opinion on creaitonism/evolution is, and it wasn't material
> to the debate. I only offer this now because I value the insights I
> occasionally glean from this message board and I hope that by providing some
> biography I can convince you I'm not "out to get you" or secretly promoting
> an agenda, be it creationist or otherwise, and that I can thereby increase
> the ratio of useful, constructive information to the kind of insults and
> jeers that seem to pop up whenever someone suspects I am a *gasp*
> creationist.
>
Mark
> - Eric Lambeth
Adam Marczyk
news:u0rs8.1234$CA6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnab2enn.1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
> > Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > The thing you are missing is that Creationism is religion. Religion
> cannot
> > be taught in state funded schools.
>
> All right, now we're getting somewhere! The fundamental objections to
> teaching the theory of creationism, in paralell with the theory of
> evolution, seem to be 1) that creationism isn't science, and 2) that
> creationism is religion.
And also that it's patently wrong. But those two will do for a start.
> So let's look at the following hypothetical:
>
> A teacher walks into a classroom and says "class, we are now going to learn
> the theory of evolution. This theory is what a majority of american
> scientists believe to be the case." Then, we teach evolution theory for an
> hour. Then, the teacher says, "ok class, new subject! We will no longer be
> talking about science. We will be talking about philosophy. The following
> theory, called creationism, is what a majority of americans believe to be
> the case, PHILOSOPHICALLY." Then they teach the theory of creationism for
> an hour.
>
> How can a reasonable person possibly object to that? You haven't called
> creationism "science," in fact you've stated an explicit scientific bias in
> favor of evolution, yet you've given a philosophical orientation to an
> alternative approach that millions of people believe to be an important (or
> indeed, the MOST important) factor in their lives.
I have no problem with that. But if creationism is taught, it can't be taught as
science. In a comparative religion or philosophy class, as you said, I have no
problem with it - but only if the presentation is honestly for that purpose, and
not a way to "sneak" creationism into schools along the lines of "those godless
evolutionists who control the country say we're not allowed to teach this in
science class, so we're presenting it as philosophy only *wink wink nudge
nudge* - now here's the scientific evidence that proves evolution couldn't have
happened..."
> The only possible objection, and the one several folks seem to have fallen
> back on when other arguments have failed, is "well, that's against the US
> constitution." But as various people have noted, the constiution was never
> intended to ban any reference to any diety in any public discourse.
Depends on what you mean by "public discourse." If you mean people can argue
about evolution, God or whatever else in forums such as these, or in any other
public medium they choose, I agree, fine; that's freedom of speech. But in that
sense, the schools are not a "public discourse"; they are a government-sponsored
institution and thus must remain strictly neutral on the topic of religion. To
teach creationism as science in public schools wouldn't be free speech, but
government-sponsored religious indoctrination.
> There is prayer in congress, for example, and at the time of the writing of
the
> constitution, prayer in schools predominated. The principle of separation
> of church and state simply meant that no religious figure (i.e., the pope,
> the head of the anglican church, etc.) is constitutionally empowered with
> governmental authority. Like the other amendments, this is a response to a
> specific abuse of power under the reign of King George in 1776, who did
> nasty things like quartering troops in people's houses and intertwining the
> heirarchy of the Anglican church with that of the state. A reading of the
> early Federalist literature will nowhere suggest that the word "god" is
> outlawed from ever appearing in state sponsored speech.
And yet there is much clear evidence that the modern sense of the First
Amendment, the famous "wall of separation between church and state", is exactly
what the founding fathers intended when they wrote it. For example, from this
letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in January
1802:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and
his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that
the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme
will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with
sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man
to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties."
> And even if it were
> so, as I've pointed out before, the US constitution, while a great
> document, is by no means the universal truth.
Who in the world claimed otherwise? But it is the law of this nation.
> Among other things, it at
> one time counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and at another time banned the
> sale of liquor, neither of which were particularly good concepts, in my
> humble opinion.
Both those passages have now been repealed; it seems rather odd to argue against
things the Constitution no longer says as a means of proving it's fallible. Of
course it's fallible, that's why we have a mechanism to change it, and have
changed it.
>If you're interested in scientific proof and logical
> theorems, the US constitution seems like an odd document to quote as a
> source.
What on earth are you talking about?
> If the first amendment said "There is no such thing as evolution.
> Hooray for creationism. Jesus is lord. To think otherwise is illegal." would
> you sit back and say "ah, well, that settles it, I guess I believe in
> creationism"? Of course not. Introducing first amendment objections to
> creationism not only is a fallacious argument legally,
No, it's an extremely relevant legal argument, inasmuch as teaching creationism
in schools is pretty much exactly what the first amendment was intended to
prevent.
> but as to determining
> what theory of origin is true or not, it is completely irrelevant.
The only irrelevant thing I see around here is your bizarre strawman insistence
that the Constitution has somehow been used as a guide to scientific truth.
[snip]
> Anyway, in truth, the theory of evolution appeals to me more than
> creationism intellectually; it certainly seems to be a more cohesive and
> robust theory, at least to my mind. So But, many of my friends claim to
> have experienced a touching, deeply personal revelation of jesus christ in
> their own lives which proves to them his existence and the truth of the
> bible. I have never experienced such a thing, but I don't believe my
> friends are lying to me, so I don't discount the possibility that such a
> thing is certainly possible. My great conundrum is, if I believe in
> creationism and the true answer is evolution, it's no big deal. If I
> believe in evolution and it turns out creationism was right... well, I don't
> fancy spending a few billion years in hell.
The very fact that creationists threaten their opponents with hellfire, while
evolutionists do not, ought to go a long way towards helping you decide which of
the two is scientific and which is a religion. If you really are worried
accepting evolution will damn you, then go right ahead, but I think it says a
lot about creationists that they even need to make such a threat rather than
appealing to the facts.
> The biggest problem I have with creationism is the same one I have with
> evolution, though: Both assume an inexplicable starting point.
> Creationists can't explain where god came from. Evolutionists (or perhaps
> the correct word is cosmologists) can't explain where the big bang came
> from.
You nailed it right there in those parentheses. Where the Big Bang came from is
entirely irrelevant to the correctness of evolution, which only deals with the
development of biological life.
George Acton
>
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnab2enn.1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
> > Eric Lambeth wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > The thing you are missing is that Creationism is religion. Religion
> cannot
> > be taught in state funded schools.
> >
>
> All right, now we're getting somewhere! The fundamental objections to
> teaching the theory of creationism, in paralell with the theory of
> evolution, seem to be 1) that creationism isn't science, and 2) that
> creationism is religion.
>
> So let's look at the following hypothetical:
>
> A teacher walks into a classroom and says "class, we are now going to learn
> the theory of evolution. This theory is what a majority of american
> scientists believe to be the case." Then, we teach evolution theory for an
> hour. Then, the teacher says, "ok class, new subject! We will no longer be
> talking about science. We will be talking about philosophy. The following
> theory, called creationism, is what a majority of americans believe to be
> the case, PHILOSOPHICALLY." Then they teach the theory of creationism for
> an hour.
This is off base in several ways. First, Creationism isn't a
"philosophy". It makes specific predictions about the chronology,
geology, and biology, none of which hold up. Even if ie were a
"philosophy", we don't teach philosophy in science classes.
And there is no "theory of creationism". There's only Genesis.
It takes a lot less time to read Genesis than one hour.
> How can a reasonable person possibly object to that? You haven't called
> creationism "science," in fact you've stated an explicit scientific bias in
> favor of evolution, yet you've given a philosophical orientation to an
> alternative approach that millions of people believe to be an important (or
> indeed, the MOST important) factor in their lives.
Why give a "philosophical orientation" in public schools. We don't
give a "philosophical orientation" about anything else. It's
clearly just a subtrefuge to violate the Constitution.
> The only possible objection, and the one several folks seem to have fallen
> back on when other arguments have failed, is "well, that's against the US
> constitution."
That is an excellent objection, even if it were the only one.
> But as various people have noted, the constiution was never
> intended to ban any reference to any diety in any public discourse. There
> is prayer in congress, for example, and at the time of the writing of the
> constitution, prayer in schools predominated.
That isn't using public employees to promote religion to childre.
> The principle of separation
> of church and state simply meant that no religious figure (i.e., the pope,
> the head of the anglican church, etc.) is constitutionally empowered with
> governmental authority.
This is incorrect. "Establishment" means much more.
> Like the other amendments, this is a response to a
> specific abuse of power under the reign of King George in 1776, who did
> nasty things like quartering troops in people's houses and intertwining the
> heirarchy of the Anglican church with that of the state. A reading of the
> early Federalist literature will nowhere suggest that the word "god" is
> outlawed from ever appearing in state sponsored speech. And even if it were
> so, as I've pointed out before, the US constitution, while a great
> document, is by no means the universal truth. Among other things, it at
> one time counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and at another time banned the
> sale of liquor, neither of which were particularly good concepts, in my
> humble opinion.
And both of which were changed by amdemdment. So repeal the
First Amendment if you find it offensive.
> If you're interested in scientific proof and logical
> theorems, the US constitution seems like an odd document to quote as a
> source. If the first amendment said "There is no such thing as evolution.
> Hooray for creationism. Jesus is lord. To think otherwise is illegal." would
> you sit back and say "ah, well, that settles it, I guess I believe in
> creationism"? Of course not. Introducing first amendment objections to
> creationism not only is a fallacious argument legally, but as to determining
> what theory of origin is true or not, it is completely irrelevant.
The First Amendment says nothing substantive about science of
religion. It forbids the government from certain acts, of which
promoting a specific religion in public schools is a clear example.
--George Acton
TomS
<3CB326...@softdisk.com>, George stated..."
[...snip...]
>This is off base in several ways. First, Creationism isn't a
>"philosophy". It makes specific predictions about the chronology,
>geology, and biology, none of which hold up. Even if ie were a
>"philosophy", we don't teach philosophy in science classes.
>And there is no "theory of creationism". There's only Genesis.
>It takes a lot less time to read Genesis than one hour.
And, should someone want to teach "Intelligent Design", they should
skip the reading of Genesis. Intelligent Design doesn't make specific
predictions about the chronology, geology or biology, either.
I wonder what would be the result of an Intelligent Design class,
where the students are told that the Intelligent Designers could be
space aliens who visited the earth a billion years ago.
Tom S.
George Acton
Maybe the class could sit for an hour of observant silence out of
respect to Design Theory and its claim for equal time. Mr. Pascal
would approve, since he thought humanity's biggest problem was that
people couldn't sit quietly in their home rooms.
--George Acton
George Acton
>
> The principle of separation
> of church and state simply meant that no religious figure (i.e., the pope,
> the head of the anglican church, etc.) is constitutionally empowered with
> governmental authority. Like the other amendments, this is a response to a
> specific abuse of power under the reign of King George in 1776, who did
> nasty things like quartering troops in people's houses and intertwining the
> heirarchy of the Anglican church with that of the state.
Where in the Declaration of Independence does it mention this
"intertwining"? My copy appears to be defective, because that
passage is missing. And apparently I was misinformed about the
Great Awakening.
--George Acton
Bigdakine
>From: "Eric Lambeth" elam...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/7/02 5:22 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <A28s8.25400$ml2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Several of the most recent posts take issue with me for saying creationism
>and evolution are equally valid viewpoints of looking at the world and could
>be taught side by side. The main reason for this argument seems to be that
>"Creationism isn't valid science."
>
>Well, ok, assuming that to be true... lots of things aren't science.
>History isn't. Music isn't. Art isn't. English isn't. Philosophy isn't.
>Football and basketball teams aren't scientific.
Last I heard nobody was trying to teach any of those things as sceince.. Fi
they want to teach Noah's fllod in a comparaitve religion class, I could care
less. But it has no buisness being taught in science class.
You missed the point sorry.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"