Jump to content


Photo

Evolution In Schools


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#21 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 07 May 2010 - 08:41 AM

Also, off subject briefly. Does anyone know why the quote function works sometimes and sometimes not?

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2010 - 08:48 AM

Also, off subject briefly.  Does anyone know why the quote function works sometimes and sometimes not?

View Post


The quote function always works (in my experience) unless you omit part of the code, or attempt to post more than ten (10) quotes per post.

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2010 - 08:53 AM

Man, I guess you're right.  I must also practive my religion in gravity, quantum superposition, general relativity, special relativity, the casimir effect, helium in a liquid state, etc...This can go on forever, but if one is to state that a belief in a fact is a religion then there are a lot of very, very strange religions out there right now.  I wonder if I can get donations for the Church of Gravity?  Hmmm...

View Post


Gravity, quantum superposition, general relativity, special relativity, the Casmir effect, helium in a liquid stat has nothing to do with micro or macro evolution. So your above post is obviously a red herring.

The fact that macro-evolution is nothing more than a scientific model promulgated as a fact, and defended dogmatically (see your post above) makes it de-facto a religion.

And no, that would be the church of evolutheism. And it gets donations for the public sector(see tax dollars) on a regular basis.

#24 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 09:05 AM

Man, I guess you're right.  I must also practive my religion in gravity, quantum superposition, general relativity, special relativity, the casimir effect, helium in a liquid state, etc...This can go on forever, but if one is to state that a belief in a fact is a religion then there are a lot of very, very strange religions out there right now.

I wonder if I can get donations for the Church of Gravity?  Hmmm...

View Post


I believe that's already been accomplished if anyone has actually spent their hard earned money on books like "Origen of the Species" - "God Delusion" - "Selfish Gene" - "Dianetics" - "Blind Watchmaker" - "Mein Kampf" - etc. :rolleyes:

#25 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 10:07 AM

Thanks, ikester. And sorry. I had no idea. Won't happen again. ^_^

Ron, your characterization of Evolution as a religion has more to do with the history of the American controversy than with the factuality or error of the Theory of Evolution.

If Evolution is a mistake, then it's a mistake. But you can't make it suit a weird definition of "religion" for political reasons.

I live in Argentina. The concept of separation of State and religion never came up (actually, and shamefully, our constitution says that the state supports a particular church). Here, saying Evolution is a religion would only get you a weird look and a shrug of shoulders.

This is a geopolitical issue. And Science isn't geopolitical.

Perhaps you have a local agenda. But i wish we all thought about this issue globally.

Besides, i never understood this sort of disdain for faith and religion from faithful religious people. Posted Image

Eocene, you mentioned
"Mein Kampf". Have you read it?

I haven't. But i found this (two from Mein Kampf, two from another source):

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Even knowing this, i would never dare to say that creationism is wrong because Hitler was a creationist. It would be a fallacy. I'm sure Hitler accepted Gravity as well.

I wouldn't have mentioned it if you didn't. An honest exchange of ideas is more fruitful. ^_^


#26 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 07 May 2010 - 11:03 AM

I had no idea that Hitler supported creationist views. That's very interesting. I also agree with your explanation of evolution not being a religion.

Eocene, it's very hard to tell if your being sarcastic or not and this is no fault on you but just the complete lack of human interaction to tell if it was or not. The rolleyes gif makes it seem a little more of a jab than sarcasm.

#27 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 11:24 AM

Eocene, it's very hard to tell if your being sarcastic or not and this is no fault on you but just the complete lack of human interaction to tell if it was or not.  The rolleyes gif makes it seem a little more of a jab than sarcasm.

View Post

So let's see now, "Church of Gravity" is not a jab or a sarcasm ?????? :lol:

Hmmmmmmm, I only read one set of rules when joining, Do you get another set of amended #2 rules when you choose a politically correct worldview when registering ??????? :lol:


I had no idea that Hitler supported creationist views.  That's very interesting.  I also agree with your explanation of evolution not being a religion. 

How funny. Happens when in a hurry and supposed to be concentrating on more impotant matters with work.

Hmmmmmmm, [B][COLOR=blue]"Origen of the Species" ? :o Must of had that philosopher page still open. :lol:

#28 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 12:46 PM

I had no idea that Hitler supported creationist views.

Me neither, until recently.

Creationists had me convinced that he accepted Evolution. Haha! Not that it mattered to me in any way though.

Now that i know he was a creationist, it still doesn't matter to me. I don't find it very interesting, actually. But i do find it interesting that creationists try to use our disgust for this psycho against a scientific proposition, as if it had any relevance.
And even MORE interesting that those who do it didn't do their homework (most of them) or are probably dishonest about it (Ben Stein).


#29 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 07 May 2010 - 03:18 PM

Hi, Cata. You're a quite articulate young man. <img src='http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
Thanks.

I don't see why. You don't believe that?

I've come across some people that do...

Every Bible translation says dust. not mud. Mud is something completely different, and along with dirt, has a negative connotation. The Bible says dust, get it right people!

Anyway, it wouldn't be a bias against [u]Christianity[/u]. Just against biblical literalism.

There are Jewish biblical literalists as well.

The New Testament states that man brought death. And studies show that a lot of people in the US believe this.

Because in a Science classroom you have to teach Science. And, according to most scientists, Evolution is a scientific conclusion. A scientific fact.

It does not justify indoctrination, whether it is science or not. The school is funded with government money, and the government is there to protect people's right to worship, not to attempt to convince people against their own.

Science is not a democracy, nor should it be.

I never stated otherwise.

I studied Law. I had to learn the opinions of lots of lawyers i didn't agree with. Lots of opinions were taught as a fact.

Did they ask you questions about "why is this fact," etc?

Why wouldn't you want to learn, in a Science classroom, what most scientists believe, even if they're wrong? If you're actively opposed to it, the more reasons to learn it. If you don't care about it, well, too bad... We've all been taught lots of things we didn't care about.


Too bad...
So we should say too bad as well if Creation was taught as truth in schools?
If you say "too bad" you are admitting it is unethical, or at least seem to.
So thank you for answering my question.

They gave YOU? How did they manage to do that, if the letters were anonymous?


Basically, on their website, there (was, they removed it) a link that brought you to a form that let you send a letter. It lets you put an email address as well.
It was anonymous in that I gave no information about who I actually am. Sorry for the confusion.

But they can't indoctrinate you, right? So you're concerned about the rest of the kids. Is that how it is?

It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

I don't think I need to explain how they are using taxpayer dollars to attempt to indoctrinate people.

Sounds like you're quite weak if they can do that to you. But they can't, can they? Not to you at least.
Do you know of any cases?


There are so many people whose faith has been ruined by evolution being taught in schools. From my experience, no evidence against evolution, no inconsistencies are taught. Anything that disagrees or questions it is not taught, such as not all phylogenies agreeing(According to a phylogeny I made about phosphatase in certain organisms, sharks were closer to reptiles than to fish. >.<)

Exactly. If you don't believe it, then no indoctrination took place.


It does not mean it is ethical for schools to use my parent's taxpayer dollars to do it.

I'd be cautious with that statement. Especially the "us" part.

You make it sound like they're dishonest. I bet they're just trying to teach you.

And you say "convince US". I don't know what that "us" means, but it seems to assume that everyone needs convincing.


Indoctrination involves the student not being expected to critically examine what is being taught. "Why is this not evidence against evolution" is an exampole of why this is indoctrination.

I think that, even if you take that into account, Evolution should still be taught, but i understand if you disagree. To you it obviously pays a great disservice: It disgusts people and it's not even right.

From your point of view it might be reasonable to stop teaching it.


So... why do you think it is right? Because you think it is the truth?
Do you honestly think it is right to attempt to convince children that their faith is wrong, with taxpayer dollars, just because you think their faith is wrong. American government is strongly based on the people being free to worship what they want. evolution being taught as truth goes against this.

I'm not saying that it does. I'm saying that it COULD be very ethical, from some points of view.

From an atheist point of view that is against all religion, maybe. (Not the point of view our government is supposed to be acting from)

The fact that children tend to adopt their parents faith is not nice, in my opinion.

Is that tax supported?

Look, I have nothing against evolution being taught in schools as what scientists think. But to teach it as if it were fact and anything against it is wrong is simply unethical. If we weren't asked questions like "why does this not prove evolution wrong" and were asked questions like "what do scientists think is evidence for evolution" and maybe asked a few critical thinking questions graded based on the quality of our response, then I would have no problem with evolution being taught as merely another world-view, not fact.

#30 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 07 May 2010 - 03:22 PM

I had no idea that Hitler supported creationist views.  That's very interesting.  I also agree with your explanation of evolution not being a religion. 

Eocene, it's very hard to tell if your being sarcastic or not and this is no fault on you but just the complete lack of human interaction to tell if it was or not.  The rolleyes gif makes it seem a little more of a jab than sarcasm.

View Post


Hitler was in no way a Christian. There's a quote somewhere on this forum, I think it is in the TIME magazine topic. I don't want to waste my time searching for it, but I want to notify you that it exists and that no Christian would ever say what he said.

#31 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 04:25 PM

Hitler was in no way a Christian. There's a quote somewhere on this forum, I think it is in the TIME magazine topic. I don't want to waste my time searching for it, but I want to notify you that it exists and that no Christian would ever say what he said.

View Post


Ah the Hitler fallacy.

Whatever Hitler privately believed is irrelevant and subject to speculation. His remarks in relation to his religious views are available for anyone to find. Simply stating "no christian would ever say what he said." Doesn't change his words and actions. I could say, in regards to things that you write that no christian would ever say that and I would be equally in error if I made the same remark. Your personal opinion on what constitutes a "real christian" is irrelevant.

On the why is evolution taught in public schools with taxpayer money:

First of all, would it be too easy to point out that evolution is a scientific theory and that's why it's taught in science class?

Second, a lot of people denying evolution doesn't disprove anything.

If you do not want to be taught evolution and are sincere in your convictions; why not ask your parents to send you to a christian school?

#32 Alan Kleinman

Alan Kleinman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 May 2010 - 04:47 PM

Ah the Hitler fallacy.

Whatever Hitler privately believed is irrelevant and subject to speculation. His remarks in relation to his religious views are available for anyone to find. Simply stating "no christian would ever say what he said." Doesn't change his words and actions. I could say, in regards to things that you write that no christian would ever say that and I would be equally in error if I made the same remark. Your personal opinion on what constitutes a "real christian" is irrelevant.

Hitler was an evolutionist. He believed in an Aryan super-race and then proceeded to murder millions that he felt were less fit to exist before he finally murdered himself.

Evolutionism continues to harm people with its fallacies.

#33 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 07 May 2010 - 04:57 PM

Ah the Hitler fallacy.

Whatever Hitler privately believed is irrelevant and subject to speculation. His remarks in relation to his religious views are available for anyone to find. Simply stating "no christian would ever say what he said." Doesn't change his words and actions. I could say, in regards to things that you write that no christian would ever say that and I would be equally in error if I made the same remark. Your personal opinion on what constitutes a "real christian" is irrelevant.


Does a Christian call Christianity a lie...?

First of all, would it be too easy to point out that evolution is a scientific theory and that's why it's taught in science class?


Except that it teaches against many people's religion. And the government is supposed to protect people's right to worship, not to take up a position against it.
And it is not simply taught, but taxpayer money is used to fund indoctrination of evolution. We are asked questions such as "why does this not disprove evolution"-- especially about some of the most controversial things about evolution, such as transitional fossils. Don't you see, the state is trying to recruit more children to the evolutionist side through indoctrination, trying to teach a controversial belief against many people's religion, as if it were fact.

And you ignored my point that the government is supposed to protect people's right to worship, not oppose it. Trying to convince people against their faith, using their own money, is not protection of a right in any way.

Second, a lot of people denying evolution doesn't disprove anything


Never said it does. Please avoid using strawmans.

If you do not want to be taught evolution and are sincere in your convictions; why not ask your parents to send you to a christian school?


Ah, this is what evos always say. Why should my parents pay more money to go to a private school, to not be taught something? It doesn't make sense.

#34 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 05:29 PM

It isn't a question of how evolution is taught, but rather that evolution is taught. More specifically that "Macro-evolution" is taught. If the religion of macro-evolution can be taught as a fact in public school, then every religion should be taught as fact in school.

View Post


The question was why is evolution taught when the majority of the population doesn't believe in it. My answer was simple. Christians make up roughly 80% of the US population. According to Cata's link, creationists make up 45%. Go to the polls and vote for school boards that will change the curriculum. It happened in Kansas.

By the way, the macro thing was almost a good move by creationists. Say macro is impossible and then call all evolutionary change micro. Fortunately most of the educated people who make decisions saw right through it.

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2010 - 05:52 PM

The question was why is evolution taught when the majority of the population doesn't believe in it. 

View Post

The Argumentum ad Populum fallacy is never a good idea

By the way, the macro thing was almost a good move by creationists. 

View Post

Actually, it’s a very good argument; because there is absolutely no evidence (especially empirical) that macro has ever happened. It’s nothing more then mere speculation. And the evolutionists have no answer except the evolutionist’s prayer for time.


Say macro is impossible and then call all evolutionary change micro. 

View Post

No-one says all evolutionary change is micro. The word micro-evolution is just a rip-off of adaptation. Adaptation is a fact. When it gets cold outside, I dress warmer and find a way to keep my abode warmer (etcetera).

Fortunately most of the educated people who make decisions saw right through it.

View Post


There are many of us educated people who know better. And we are no longer using macro evolution as a crutch to hide from God.

#36 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:04 PM

The question was why is evolution taught when the majority of the population doesn't believe in it.  My answer was simple.  Christians make up roughly 80% of the US population.  According to Cata's link, creationists make up 45%.  Go to the polls and vote for school boards that will change the curriculum.  It happened in Kansas.

View Post

The battle is fought in the courts. The supreme court has ruled using a letter from Thomas Jefferson. All the lawyers had to do was oversimplify creationism as religion--use the separation of church and state clause (which is not the first amendment) --and voila, no creationism.

In Louisiana the battle has gone on for quite a while now. The creationists actually won a victory last time. The schools can not refuse a question about creative fiat or ID from a student now. But that's all their gettting.

By the way, the macro thing was almost a good move by creationists. Say macro is impossible and then call all evolutionary change micro.  Fortunately most of the educated people who make decisions saw right through it.

View Post

Creationists?

Evolution 101 

http://evolution.ber...efinition.shtml

Defining Microevolution

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

If you could zoom in on one branch of the tree of life scale—the insects, for example—you would see another phylogeny relating all the different insect lineages. If you continue to zoom in, selecting the branch representing beetles, you would see another phylogeny relating different beetle species. You could continue zooming in until you saw the relationships between beetle populations.

Definition: What is Macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. 

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.


See that last statement. In other words there is no empirical evidence that macro happened, only the inference from what is already here, and assumptions of history which follow a naturalistic worldview. Along with it a philosophy of uniformintarianism--"the present is the key to the past." This statement is an assumption. We don't see hundreds of feet of limestone being formed worldwide, nor tropical forests at the north pole like there once was. The world was very different at one time

Contrarily microevolution is taught by evolutionists and is empirical. It is present adaptive changes which any wise creator would give for the survival of his creation.

#37 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:16 PM

Does a Christian call Christianity a lie...?

And why promote christianity?

Except that it teaches against many people's religion. And the government is supposed to protect people's right to worship, not to take up a position against it.
And it is not simply taught, but taxpayer money is used to fund indoctrination of evolution. We are asked questions such as "why does this not disprove evolution"-- especially about some of the most controversial things about evolution, such as transitional fossils. Don't you see, the state is trying to recruit more children to the evolutionist side through indoctrination, trying to teach a controversial belief against many people's religion, as if it were fact.


Teaching against your religion is irrelevant. Many christians are evolutionists. If you choose to make a distinction and offense at a scientific theory it's your own choice. It's not being "indoctrinated". It's being taught as scientific fact in science class. Science class is for science. Science class is not religion class.

Also I still don't get the controversy part. What is controversial?

And you ignored my point that the government is supposed to protect people's right to worship, not oppose it. Trying to convince people against their faith, using their own money, is not protection of a right in any way.

The government protects peoples right to practice religion freely. It doesn't protect your right to dictate to everyone else.

Ah, this is what evos always say. Why should my parents pay more money to go to a private school, to not be taught something? It doesn't make sense.

View Post

Your parents pay taxes so that you can get a decent education. If you choose to disbelieve what you're taught in school then that's your own business.

Edit:typo I didn't catch.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:17 PM

See that last statement.  In other words there is no empirical evidence that it happened, only the inference from what is already here, and assumptions of history which follow a naturalistic worldview.

View Post


He'll most likely totally ignore it. He's been ignoring it every time I bring it up. :mellow:

#39 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:23 PM

The question was why is evolution taught when the majority of the population doesn't believe in it. 


No, my question is, is it ethical to teach people the opposite of their belief in school, in an attempt to change their mind, with their own money.

By the way, the macro thing was almost a good move by creationists.  Say macro is impossible and then call all evolutionary change micro.  Fortunately most of the educated people who make decisions saw right through it.


Okay, seriously? Another attack on Creation? Is it possible for one of you to discuss this without attacking Creation?

#40 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:23 PM

He'll most likely totally ignore it. He's been ignoring it every time I bring it up. :mellow:

View Post


Most likely in return for your ignoring or not reading what he said.

I am absolutely astounded that both of you read that statement and then without even a moments hesitation, have objected to it.

If either of you cannot understand what's wrong with the statements you both made....man I just cannot believe you both said that. I'm floored.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users