^^^i just dont really have a problem with having MORE ideas in the classroom

iirc, i was taught evolution in my elementary science classes...its been awhile but i want to say there was a mention of creationism...nothing taught as fact, but just basically a tolerance thing..."some people believe THIS and thats ok too" or whatever

science has yet to explain what happened before the big bang, for example...why not have more ideas out there?

Besides, what if a family is religious...what if before ever going to kindergarten, a child in that family has been raised in, lets say, a christian upbringing...god created this, church on sundays that, etc...what do you tell that kid when he raises his hand in science class and asks about god?

9/18/2008 5:19:49 PM

^ These people don't merely want someone to say "some people don't believe that, that's fine." They want "some people don't believe that, here's why <Earth is only 10,000 years old>". How is that acceptable in a science class? Do you really think science teachers should be digging through Discovery Institutes blatantly flawed "textbooks" on why the Earth is only 10,000 years old?

9/18/2008 5:30:22 PM

Quote :

"These people don't merely want someone to say "some people don't believe that, that's fine." They want "some people don't believe that, here's why ""

orly?

9/18/2008 5:33:50 PM

^ Probably. Have you not been following every other instance where this issue crops up? The Discovery Institute almost always gets involved, then they get pwnd in court.

Creation and religion in general is not at odds with evolution... my HS AP Bio teacher said he believed God created the universe (he was a Catholic), but still taught evolution without any reservation. It's the YEC Creationism that these nutjobs want taught, which is demonstrably false.

9/18/2008 5:37:03 PM

Some of you people must lead a very sad, miserable existance.

9/18/2008 6:27:49 PM

Quote :

"Creation and religion in general is not at odds with evolution... my HS AP Bio teacher said he believed God created the universe (he was a Catholic), but still taught evolution without any reservation."

My mom and grandma who are Presbyterian beleive the same thing. From my observation both Presbyterian and Methodiests are more likely to forego a direct interpretation of the bible and see its many passages often like a fable with some historic fact.

Baptists Evangelicals on the other hand are more likely to take the direct interpretation of the bible. Every word in there is the word of GOD; ignoring the fact that during the translation of the King James bible (latin to english) many verses were not perfectly translated or the well known fact among historians that even back in the day Roman emperors often "edited" parts of the bible. I tried explaining this and my buddy just looked at me like I was an idiot saying God would NEVER let someone change anything about the bible. He also beleive the entire world flooded over for Noah's ark and is a fan of Creationism. I tried to ask about dinosaurs and got this whack ass explanation.

I just don't understand why belief in God and evolution are exclusive. People just choose to close their mind to a throughly ongoing researched theory in favor of a book written 1000s of years ago when it was believed the world was flat and the best treatment for any illness was blood letting.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM. Reason : l]

9/18/2008 7:23:41 PM

Quote :

"Some of you people must lead a very sad, miserable existance."

And why would that be?

9/18/2008 7:40:21 PM

I assume that Creationist supporters also disagree with the laws of physics. Scientists have created various laws, axioms, and theories to explain the world.

One of the very most fundamental is the "Law of Conservation of Matter" which creationism clearly violates. Using the false primes of creationism you could probably incorrectly prove that Magic; minotaurs, and dragons did exist as well as the earth truly being flat.

9/18/2008 8:57:35 PM

HUR what happened before the big bang?

9/18/2008 8:58:55 PM

^ Gee I don't know why don't we ask a preacher.

9/18/2008 9:04:17 PM

i agree with evolution and physics

i dont know what the fuck that has to do with the question i asked

kinda like how you are a straight male but you stand up for gays and women because they have rights

9/18/2008 9:06:01 PM

^^^ No one knows for sure. Why is that relevant to this thread?

9/18/2008 10:16:37 PM

why isnt it relevant?

moron, what do you think happened before the big bang?

9/18/2008 10:18:15 PM

^ why IS it relevant? does pre-big-bang have an bearing on any aspect of the science curriculum of every high school and most college students?

9/18/2008 10:44:31 PM

Quote :

"the Theory of Evolution.... has nothing to do with the big bang, the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life. It is a theory that is tightly defined and describes one area of nature."

9/18/2008 10:47:11 PM

^^why are you avoiding the question? are you afraid that science cant answer it? you afraid that some all powerful being might have set shit in motion billions of years ago?

^its the most likely theory as of right now though

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 10:49:14 PM

^ huh? I said already:

Quote :

" No one knows for sure."

There ARE theories and areas of research that go down that path, but due to technological limitations, the theories are very limited. If you want me to go in to them, I will, but IMO, they are too primitive for me to speculate.

It's funny though you think you know what I think. Ha.

From my perspective, it seems you realize you've lose the Creationism-in-science class debate, and are taking the burro stance that science=religion (which is also wrong).

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2008 10:51:03 PM

the point is, much of the sentiment of people in this thread who are opposed to teaching some aspect of creationism in addition to the theory of evolution seems to be because "religion is dumb! there is no god!"

then i hit them with that question, and they are truly baffled

why do we even mention the big bang theory in schools? its just as unprovable as creationism...yet its taught...why can we teach one wild guess and not another?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 10:52:20 PM

Quote :

"why do we even mention the big bang theory in schools? its just as unprovable as creationism...yet its taught...why can we teach one wild guess and not another? "

Oh, I see. You are confusing big-bang with what happened before big bang. Those are 2 COMPLETELY different issues.

There is FAR more evidence for big bang theory than creationism. The idea that the big-bang happened is fairly well known at this time, the disputes are in the timescale different events happened.

9/18/2008 10:55:51 PM

Quote :

"There is FAR more evidence for big bang theory than creationism"

there might be more evidence, but not the FAR more that you claim...its a theory based on relative velocities and distances that hypothesizes that the universe is expanding...thats it

besides maybe we cant understand what happened before the big bang (supposedly happened)...maybe we're not smart enough yet...but no, probably not...humans are geniuses, we understand everything

9/18/2008 10:58:07 PM

Quote :

"HUR what happened before the big bang?"

Honestly my only response is you think too "3 Dimensionally"
The way pre-Renaissance humans thought the world is flat; is in my opinion the way current humans perceive space time in which there is a beginning "the big bang" and a continuous progression in time that from our perspective goes to Infinity.

We are missing part of the puzzle and as it took millions of years for the first homo erectus to rub to sticks together to create fire; i do not doubt the fact that our society is still primitive to what possibilities exist for us or perhaps never if we hit the limit to such advancement. Reckless is it to assume that we have plateaued and humans have evolved the solstice of logical and reasoning processes. The answer to the pre-big bang question may rely on theories and a mindset to which we currently have no way of realizing.

This may create the domain at which a/the god exists or not. Tis not my authority to answer.

As a thought experiment the majority of the current population as was necessary through primitive human species development perceives the world in a linear type fashion. Reality though as anyone who studies the sciences, math, or engineering knows that most functions of real world observation can be formalized through exponential and sinusoidal functional analysis. For many this is hard to conceptualize as in the case of a perfectly circular wheel, if you start at the x-axis and move to y-axis why is the half way point not where x and y equals 1/2. Without in depth studying of advanced math in no way can you conceptualize this value actually equal the square root of 2 not 1/2

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason : l]

9/18/2008 10:59:49 PM

Quote :

"there might be more evidence, but not the FAR more that you claim...its a theory based on relative velocities and distances that hypothesizes that the universe is expanding...thats it"

LOL

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

What evidence at all is there of creationism, btw?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2008 10:59:50 PM

Quote :

"The Big Bang theory predicts"

i dont think theres any empirical evidence of creationism, so what, i thought the Dems were the party of tolerance?

9/18/2008 11:01:42 PM

Which mathematically makes big bang infinitely more valid than creationism, doesn't it?

Quote :

"why do we even mention the big bang theory in schools? its just as unprovable as creationism...yet its taught...why can we teach one wild guess and not another? "

I will note as well that you seem to have waffled a bit here.

9/18/2008 11:07:18 PM

Whats crazy is random fluctuations we perceive as background cosmic rays could truly be a multiplex of the galaxy mixed in an alien hip-hop satellite radio signal. Thanks to special relativity the time perception we take for granted could on a select system one year for us be 1,000,000 years or 10 seconds for some other being.

When my friends have the "we beleive in creationism is true" debate I can't help but think. The bible says the world was created in 6 days by god; with adam and eve thrown down on the 7th. Perhaps all the scientific theories we hold as true is not exclusive but supportive of religious doctrine. Special relativity could very well allow for in the reference frame of some all powerful being the world to be created in 6 days which in our inerial set point to truly be Billions of years.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : l]

9/18/2008 11:08:21 PM

paragraph 1^

could be...doesnt seem likely, but i'm not gonna shit on 100,000,000 americans beliefs because i personally am intolerant of them

paragraph 2^

who is to say that if the bible is true, the length of a day is our roman calendar length of a day and not say 500,000,000 years?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 11:10:20 PM

TT I have no problem with religion. I like and support what it stands for and how it shapes peoples lives. Just when others try to impose their religion on others or when preacher bob uses religion to make his own wealth and violate little boys do i get angry.

9/18/2008 11:12:55 PM

^^ not wanting one religious interpretation of dozens in christianity alone, and even more among all religions, to be taught in a science class is not "shitting on 100 million people" it's basic rationality.

Do you expect them to teach in History class that the Holocaust didn't actually happen? The concentration camps are an elaborate hoax? there's probably more support for that theory than creationism, yet it's obviously wrong. Why let it get "equal time" with real history?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:13 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2008 11:13:03 PM

Quote :

"Do you expect them to teach in History class that the Holocaust didn't actually happen?"

no, but theres already plenty of other shit in history books thats not completely true...actual events with spin put on them, if you will

9/18/2008 11:14:01 PM

what happened here? looks like TT tried to bork the thread maybe?

9/18/2008 11:15:23 PM

i'm moron, and i am intolerant of other people's views

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ^i have no idea what that means]

9/18/2008 11:16:07 PM

someone crashed out this thread

9/18/2008 11:18:33 PM

Quote :

"no, but theres already plenty of other shit in history books thats not completely true...actual events with spin put on them, if you will"

So you think science should artificially have the same subjective approach as history? Science and math are different than history and english. Because of the logical rules of those subjects, there's a more straight forward way to frame things.

9/18/2008 11:19:01 PM

math is the only subject i trust 100.00%

considering all other subjects are constantly changing and updating

you ever notice how when some of the great philosophers have died of old age, they mention how although they've spent their entire lives trying to understand the world, they realized they don't really know anything? thats probably too deep for you

Quote :

"someone crashed out this thread"

my bad, forgot to close a tag earlier...fixed

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 11:20:22 PM

In science the way to change things is to publish research and have people look at it.

not get a school board with no scientific expertise to force a clearly and decidedly un-scientific theory to be taught alongside real science.


[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2008 11:24:49 PM

Quote :

"In science the way to change things is to publish research and have people look at it."

and everyone agrees, and it becomes the consensus, and you're a hero, and then 50 years later it gets completely pwnt by somebody else's research, even though you just knew you were right at the time

9/18/2008 11:26:30 PM

Quote :

"you ever notice how when some of the great philosophers have died of old age, they mention how although they've spent their entire lives trying to understand the world, they realized they don't really know anything? thats probably too deep for you "

First, no one is saying they know everything. I don't know everything. I probably understand that concept better than you...

But what i DO know is that big-C Creationism clearly does not deserve to be taught in the science class. Everything else in your science text book had to go through a process to get there, and can go through a process to be removed from there. Why should 1 of MANY religions in the US be able to bypass this process and force their way in?

As a conservative who purportedly is against gov. intervention, why are you not against this government intervention?

And people who publish rarely know or believe they're right. I'm guessing you've never read any journal articles.

9/18/2008 11:30:12 PM

let me try and be concise

just because i personally dont believe in creationism doesnt mean i dont think people should have the ability to choose what they want to believe in

9/18/2008 11:34:18 PM

People can believe what they want, doesn't bother me. I sat it church for years, and I would sit in a church today, that doesn't mean i MUST believe what they are saying.

Likewise, a science class is for science. People can believe what they want and still learn about science and the scientific process. This means they don't talk about Shakespeare, they don't talk about the Trail of Tears, and they don't talk about religious ideologies. Do you disagree with this?

9/18/2008 11:36:31 PM

i dont disagree

but dont you think if these people go to church or have religious parents, they're going to form their own views regardless of what they're taught in school?

9/18/2008 11:38:00 PM

^ Some will some won't.

My dad was a preacher, i went to church almost every sunday until my second year of college, that doesn't mean that logic or rationality is lost on me.

What people believe personally doesn't affect how a science curriculum should be designed.

9/18/2008 11:39:48 PM

^^^^ I agree but in science class we should teach that which follows the scientific method and is accepted by those in the field. Arguebly the history we teach in history class could be criticized for being a patriotic doctored version devoid of many truths necessary to have a full understanding of where our society came from. Likewise I have no problem with history class as its taught; if you want to have a full understanding you can study history in college. To which you learn history in much great detail and learn many of americas dirty secrets, but hey we aren't an exception. This holds true for every country.
Nothing good comes out of teaching a 6 year old of the adventures of Christopher Columbus coming to america to pillage wealth, enslave native americans, and his crew raping the local women.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason : l]

9/18/2008 11:39:55 PM

Quote :

"What people believe personally doesn't affect how a science curriculum should be designed."

and as someone who is an agnostic, i dont disagree

but you mentioned your dad was a preacher and logic and rationality arent lost on you

why not let science classes in a particular school district where all schoolboard members want creationism taught, be taught? if people are logical and rational, they will form their own opinions

and i still dont understand how the curriculum will be taught...i dont think it will be taught in any kind of definitive manner...they're not saying it should be taught INSTEAD OF evolution

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 11:42:45 PM

Quote :

"why not let science classes in a particular school district where all schoolboard members want creationism taught, be taught? if people are logical and rational, they will form their own opinions "

Because science isn't a democratic institution, it's merit-based. Could a school board also vote to teach that George Bush is the worst president ever, if everyone on the "school board" agreed?

I personally would love if someone had proof of god, it would make my life easier (i'd sleep better), but as of yet, no one has come up with even a logical model IMO (unless you assume god plays absolutely no role in our universe other than to have created it).

Quote :

"and i still dont understand how the curriculum will be taught...i dont think it will be taught in any kind of definitive manner...they're not saying it should be taught INSTEAD OF evolution "

That's the other side of this issue. You can't honestly teach Creationism without making a mockery of it.

Just imagine...

"so Creationists think the Earth is 10,000 years old, but literally every other field of science has corroborating evidence that the earth is AT LEAST MORE than 10,000 years old." That would be great to teach IMO, but also doesn't explicitly belong in a science class either (there's no need to discuss specific myths there).

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2008 11:55:17 PM

I took freshman biology in 1999. When we reached the topic of "evolution" the school sent home notices to the parents. The notice told them it was acceptable for them to request their child to be removed. Granted I don't think all the notices made it back to parents (i suppose some children were just lazy and some students in my class wanted to hear an alternative theory to the religious doctrine to which they grew) but i beleive 2-3 students out of 30 were removed.

Evolution is still taught, although which much evidence, as a theory. Those who feel this violates their religious doctrine should not be so threatened by alternative ideas. It is this intolerance to which many problems outside of evolution class are created by those of different beliefs. If your belief is so strong than you should be able to hear the evolution THEORY but be resilient enough to stick to your beliefs. Not like the students are going to turn devil worshippers.

A frat bro of mine is probably one of the most prious and devout Christians I know. As part of being a Religions major he if forced to study all the other major religions at NCSU. Rather than treat the various ideologues as a threat, from my conversations with him, he actually developed an appreciation for the righteous message that they deliver without eroding his conviction in the faith he has put in Christianity.

9/18/2008 11:57:13 PM

Quote :

"I took freshman biology in 1999. When we reached the topic of "evolution" the school sent home notices to the parents. The notice told them it was acceptable for them to request their child to be removed. Granted I don't think all the notices made it back to parents (i suppose some children were just lazy and some students in my class wanted to hear an alternative theory to the religious doctrine to which they grew) but i beleive 2-3 students out of 30 were removed."

even this is a little absurd I think.

That would be like letting Muslims where their headdress in their driver's license photo or something.

9/18/2008 11:59:03 PM

Quote :

"so Creationists think the Earth is 10,000 years old, but literally every other field of science has corroborating evidence that the earth is AT LEAST MORE than 10,000 years old"

that would definitely be making a mockery of religion if they taught it like that

9/19/2008 12:03:09 AM

the thing is though NO where in the bible does it pinpoint any kind of start date of the world which would also require a reference date. Given that we approximate the Jesus was alive around 1AD it would be necessary for Genesis to have been edited in the OLD to NEW testament translation to state 6000 years before JESUS!

In reality though the "10,000" years is pretty much fabricated by an unscientific process to which priests decided on because "smarter" people of the new age where asking to many "why/when/where" questions unlike blindly accepting the good book at literal interpretation value as peasants of back in the day did.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM. Reason : l]

9/19/2008 12:22:37 AM

Quote :

"Do I consider myself smarter-than-thou to dismiss your belief system, scientific or religious, as bunk? NO!"

There is so much wisdom in that statement that it bears repeating. if only the all-knowing science defenders would ascribe to such a system of thought, instead of looking down their noses at the heathen savages of other religions...

Quote :

"There is absolutely no way the Earth is anything less than 10,000 years old, like creationist believe."

Really? Were you here 10,000 years ago to prove that? You fail to understand the fundamental limitations on the evidence you claim is so solid for your beliefs.

9/19/2008 12:55:30 AM

^ The sheer amount of fail in each one of your posts on science is astounding.

9/19/2008 1:12:04 AM