Jump to content


Photo

Public school systems


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#1 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 08:29 AM

I believe there are some pros and cons in todays secular school systems, the cons are that the science classes for the most part teach evolutionary thinking, and pass it off as a fact.
The pros in my opinion is that for the most part when kids graduate, they rarely remember any of the evolution that was attempted to be taught to them.
That does not stop the evolutionary teachings thats on television every day in society, but the lack of interest in it by most of everyone is a pro.

America for the most part believes in God, therefore are either confused by evolutionary ideas, or simply don't believe it.

One good thing that happens which is not so good is this: Its not good to see a school fail in my opnion, because much useful information/education can be learned in school, such as math,reading, etc.

But one crucial element thats been stripped from schools is Jesus, without Christ in schools, they often fail, many of the public schools are failing now, which puts a damper on evolutionary teachings in them.
So out of a bad, we get a good.

I would love to hear others thoughts on this.


Louie <><

#2 tkster

tkster

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:Lubbock Texas
  • Interests:Working out, shopping, hanging out with friends
  • Age: 21
  • Scientology
  • Atheist
  • Lubbock Texas

Posted 13 March 2005 - 09:45 AM

My ideas are a little more political. I am in favor of a school voucher system. An example, if people don't want their kids being taught evolution they could take their tax dollars and support a private school that would teach their kids Creation. This would ensure that people's money isn't going to something they don't believe and are offended by, and also that the education system becomes more competitive which would ensure the laziness we find with many teachers stop.

I think that would solve most of the debate about evolution or creation being taught in schools as people could take their kids and pay their taxes to systems that support their ideas.

tk

#3 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 09:54 AM

My ideas are a little more political.  I am in favor of a school voucher system.  An example, if people don't want their kids being taught evolution they could take their tax dollars and support a private school that would teach their kids Creation.  This would ensure that people's money isn't going to something they don't believe and are offended by, and also that the education system becomes more competitive which would ensure the laziness we find with many teachers stop.

I think that would solve most of the debate about evolution or creation being taught in schools as people could take their kids and pay their taxes to systems that support their ideas.

tk

View Post


I agree with you whole heartedly, I am also in favor of the voucher program, I believe that was proposed at one point by pres. Bush.
But was shot down, because in my opinion would have greatly reduced the number of kids being exposed to secular teachings.

Thanks for the reply :lol:

Louie-

#4 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 13 March 2005 - 03:35 PM

This is indeed political.

My understanding is that this country was set up with public schools to teach math, and science, and reading, and literature, and history. Churches were set up for religion and religious studies. Tax dollars support public schools. Tax exemptions and donations support churches. This arrangement has worked pretty well for 200 years. Why mess it up now?

I bet if Creation is taught in taxpayer supported schools, then church tax exemptions will go away.

#5 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 06:36 PM

This is indeed political. 

My understanding is that this country was set up with public schools to teach math, and science, and reading, and literature, and history.  Churches were set up for religion and religious studies.   Tax dollars support public schools.  Tax exemptions and donations support churches.  This arrangement has worked pretty well for 200 years.  Why mess it up now? 

I bet if Creation is taught in taxpayer supported schools, then church tax exemptions will go away.

View Post


Why teach creation in public schools, because evolution is incorrect, they are teaching kids a lie, intensionaly or not, its still a lie.

At least if they taught creation along with evolution as a different option, it would give kids a choice, the reason they don't want to do that is because about 2% of the kids would even want to hear about evolution, and those kids would be the rebellious ones.

Creation is not religion, its the teaching that God, an inteligent creator designed and created the Earth and life, which makes alot more sense than saying it created itself.

It can't be helped if what science supports is religion based, it can't be helped if Christianity is more than a religion, its true.
Some people say, well, thats not science, its religion, well whats that have to do with it being fact or not?

God is real, Christ is real, and the fact that God created the world in 6 literal day around 6,000 yrs ago is true.
Its much better than teaching our kids we were once fish, then monkeys, then sub-human retards, thats all made up stories, unsubstantiated and completely imagined.

Evolution can't be proven, because you can't prove what isn't so.
Since its believed without empiracle proof, therefore its a religion as well.
So if your going to teach one religion in public schools, you might as well give them the option of learning a religion thats true.


Thanks,Louie Buren <><

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 March 2005 - 07:26 PM

I believe there are some pros and cons in todays secular school systems, the cons are that the science classes for the most part teach evolutionary thinking, and pass it off as a fact.

View Post

As the current scientific theory. If the observations did not fit the theory, the theory would collapse. thus it is taught.

The pros in my opinion is that for the most part when kids graduate, they rarely remember any of the evolution that was attempted to be taught to them.
That does not stop the evolutionary teachings thats on television every day in society, but the lack of interest in it by most of everyone is a pro.


I assume you mean documentaries on dinosaurs and the like, hopefully they should be guided by people who have expertise in the knowledge that goes into making them. Like the BBC’s “Life on Earth” or “Walking With Dinosaurs”.

America for the most part believes in God, therefore are either confused by evolutionary ideas, or simply don't believe it.


A belief system is not dependant upon scientific proof.

One good thing that happens which is not so good is this: Its not good to see a school fail in my opnion, because much useful information/education can be learned in school, such as math, reading, etc.

But one crucial element thats been stripped from schools is Jesus, without Christ in schools, they often fail, many of the public schools are failing now, which puts a damper on evolutionary teachings in them.
So out of a bad, we get a good.

I would love to hear others thoughts on this.


I suspect that Christianity is not taught in a public school is that as a multi-cultural nation it has to be fair to those that do not believe or have an alternate belief. The failing IMO, is that religious teaching (where it comes to moral behaviour) has not been replaced with a seculare equivalent. I made this point in the morality discussion.

#7 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 13 March 2005 - 10:19 PM

A belief system is not dependant upon scientific proof.


The belief in evolution is empiracle proof of that statement.

#8 fishbob

fishbob

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:48 AM

Why teach creation in public schools, because evolution is incorrect, they are teaching kids a lie, intensionaly or not, its still a lie. . . .

God is real, Christ is real, and the fact that God created the world in 6 literal day around 6,000 yrs ago is true. . . .

Evolution can't be proven, because you can't prove what isn't so. . . .

Since its believed without empiracle proof, therefore its a religion as well. . . .

View Post


I have to disagree with 4 of your statements.

1 - the evidence found to date supports evolution.

2 - the idea of creation of the earth only 6000 years ago is not supported by any evidence.

3 - of course evolution can't be proven - proof is for courtrooms and math. But in science, evolution is supported as well as any other theory by the evidence we have and it could be disproven if certain evidence were found.

4- evolution is not believed without empirical proof, evolution is supported by evidence, and so it has nothing to do with belief, therefore it is not a religion at all.

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 March 2005 - 01:34 PM

The belief in evolution is empiracle proof of that statement.

View Post


It would be a strange sort of belief that stands or falls on the evidence, yes? Perhaps we should call it science and continue to teach that in the science class, where if contrary evidence can be provided, scrutinised, and accepted as a superior theory will replace evolution.

#10 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 08:13 AM

It would be a strange sort of belief that stands or falls on the evidence, yes? Perhaps we should call it science and continue to teach that in the science class, where if contrary evidence can be provided, scrutinised, and accepted as a superior theory will replace evolution.

View Post


Its called a theory, which is more credit than it deserves, but why is it being taught as a fact?

There is no more evidence for evolution than there is for creation,
Its simply determined on whether or not someone wants to believe in a God or not.
Evolution is an assuption on the basis of thinking there is no god.


thanX><

#11 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 March 2005 - 10:34 AM

Evolution is an assuption on the basis of thinking there is no god.


Creationism begins with the assumption that God exists, and everything that follows is utterly dependent upon acceptance of this as fact. It therefore seems reasonable (to the creationist) to assume that evolutionary theory begins by assuming that God doesn't exist, and that it is just as dependent on accepting this as fact. In truth, the non-existence of God is not only not evolutionary theory's most central premise (as His existence is for creationism), but postulating the existence of God has no effect on the theory whatsoever.

What often seems most difficult for the creationist to grasp is that atheism is not a religion. For him, the existence of God is the single most significant aspect of his reality, and when the atheist says he doesn't believe in God, the creationist doesn't buy it. He thinks the atheist simply rejects God, and clings to his science in an attempt to reinforce an idea he finds attractive: that God doesn't exist (this also makes sense to the creationist, whose beliefs require constant upkeep through prayer meetings, bible readings, sermons, picnics, etc).

I think of a lot of misunderstanding and ill will could be avoided if more creationists could appreciate the fact that you can't build a life around the non-existence of God any more than you could around the non-existence of bigfoot, the lost city of Atlantis, or invisible pink unicorns -- and you also can't make the non-existance of those things the basis for science.

#12 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 15 March 2005 - 12:06 PM

Its called a theory, which is more credit than it deserves, but why is it being taught as a fact?


The FACT of evolution is that organisms changed over time.

The THEORY of evolution is that this changed was caused by the mechanisms of common ancestory, speciation, random mutation, and natural selection.

There is no more evidence for evolution than there is for creation,


I beg to differ. YEC theory has been falsified, so it has no evidence. Evolution is supported by all of the evidence and falsified by none of it.

Its simply determined on whether or not someone wants to believe in a God or not.


False. There are many theistic evolutionists who completely accept the theory of evolution and believe that God is the force behind it.

Evolution is an assuption on the basis of thinking there is no god.
thanX><

View Post


That is something only creationists and atheists agree on. As a science, evolution is neutral as to the existence or non-existence of God. Science requires that natural phenomena be described through natural mechanisms, not that God doesn't exist.

#13 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 15 March 2005 - 12:53 PM

The FACT of evolution is that organisms changed over time.

That is something only creationists and atheists agree on.  As a science, evolution is neutral as to the existence or non-existence of God.  Science requires that natural phenomena be described through natural mechanisms, not that God doesn't exist.

View Post


And while this may be true of some atheist, anyone, atheist or theist, who understands the scientific process, is aware that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. It can disprove or prove certain details of myths and folktales, but I reiterate it make no, and cannot make any claims about the existence of God. The problem arises when absolutists on both sides insists the existence of god hinges on the validity of specific folk tales (worldwide flood, tower of Babble as source for multiple languages, etc.).

#14 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 01:36 PM

And while this may be true of some atheist, anyone, atheist or theist, who understands the scientific process, is aware that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. It can disprove or prove certain details of myths and folktales, but I reiterate it make no, and cannot make any claims about the existence of God. The problem arises when absolutists on both sides insists the existence of god hinges on the validity of specific folk tales (worldwide flood, tower of Babble as source for multiple languages, etc.).

View Post


Though you can't prove the existance of God through science(which is fallible) and limited in its abilities as far as God goes.
You can however, see the attributes of God, through his creation, its not only scientific to assert that there is a creator but its commen sense.
Working mechanisms of any sort, were created by inteligence.

Something can't be made to function by itself.
As far as the global flood being a myth, I disagree, marine fossils have been found atop MT. Everest, thats just one example of evidence of a global flood.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org for more on that.


ThanX <><

#15 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 01:42 PM

Creationism begins with the assumption that God exists, and everything that follows is utterly dependent upon acceptance of this as fact. It therefore seems reasonable (to the creationist) to assume that evolutionary theory begins by assuming that God doesn't exist, and that it is just as dependent on accepting this as fact. In truth, the non-existence of God is not only not evolutionary theory's most central premise (as His existence is for creationism), but postulating the existence of God has no effect on the theory whatsoever.

What often seems most difficult for the creationist to grasp is that atheism is not a religion. For him, the existence of God is the single most significant aspect of his reality, and when the atheist says he doesn't believe in God, the creationist doesn't buy it. He thinks the atheist simply rejects God, and clings to his science in an attempt to reinforce an idea he finds attractive: that God doesn't exist (this also makes sense to the creationist, whose beliefs require constant upkeep through prayer meetings, bible readings, sermons, picnics, etc).

I think of a lot of misunderstanding and ill will could be avoided if more creationists could appreciate the fact that you can't build a life around the non-existence of God any more than you could around the non-existence of bigfoot, the lost city of Atlantis, or invisible pink unicorns -- and you also can't make the non-existance of those things the basis for science.

View Post



God is not a myth, or something that can be just pushed aside from mans agenda and said to be, "AW that just religion", God is very real, and owns all of us, whether we accept this or not.

Reward or punishment will be the end result of our decisions we make while alive on Earth. Think just saying theres no god and imagining other options will take away the fact we are accountable to him? think again.

God has written his law on the hearts of all men, what this means is that evolutionists even know God is real if they look past their desires to not be accountable to a higher power.

thanX,
Louie Buren <><

#16 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 15 March 2005 - 01:47 PM

God is not a myth, or something that can be just pushed aside from mans agenda and said to be, "AW that just religion", God is very real, and owns all of us, whether we accept this or not.

Reward or punishment will be the end result of our decisions we make while alive on Earth.  Think just saying theres no god and imagining other options will take away the fact we are accountable to him? think again.

God has written his law on the hearts of all men, what this means is that evolutionists even know God is real if they look past their desires to not be accountable to a higher power.

thanX,
Louie Buren <><

View Post


Again, there are many theistic evolutionists. They fully accept both natural evolution and the existence of God. How do you explain this? This seems like the same argument that the Roman Catholic Church had with Galileo. Either accept geocentrism or don't believe in God. The RCC rightly recognizes that both heliocentrism and christianity can now co-exist. The RCC even fully accepts the theory of evolution as solid theory, a good explanation for how Man's earthly body was created. I am expecting that in another 100 years christians will look back at the debate over evolution in the same light as the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debate.

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 March 2005 - 02:15 PM

chance> It would be a strange sort of belief that stands or falls on the evidence, yes? Perhaps we should call it science and continue to teach that in the science class, where if contrary evidence can be provided, scrutinised, and accepted as a superior theory will replace evolution.

lionheart209> Its called a theory, which is more credit than it deserves, but why is it being taught as a fact?

There is no more evidence for evolution than there is for creation,
Its simply determined on whether or not someone wants to believe in a God or not.
Evolution is an assuption on the basis of thinking there is no god.


If as you say, Evolution is an assumption, where is the appropriate place to resolve this? Should it be in the class room (Primary or High school), University, or in academia? In other words what gets taught in the class room is either dependant on a “top down” or “bottom up” flow.

#18 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 15 March 2005 - 02:24 PM

Though you can't prove the existance of God through science(which is fallible) and limited in its abilities as far as God goes.
You can however, see the attributes of God, through his creation, its not only scientific to assert that there is a creator but its commen sense.
Working mechanisms of any sort, were created by inteligence.

Something can't be made to function by itself.
As far as the global flood being a myth, I disagree, marine fossils have been found atop MT. Everest, thats just one example of evidence of a global flood.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org for more on that.
ThanX <><

View Post


No one with any intelligence at all would claim that science is not fallible. A great deal of scientific work is correcting mistakes made in the past. Any endeavor that includes humans is subject to faults. Let me repeat that. ANY endeavor that includes humans is subject to faults. This includes any writings, modern or ancient. I personally think there is a great deal of valuable philosophy in the bible. I’m even a paid up member of Atheists for Jesus. (And no, that’s not a joke). This is just my opinion, but if God is worthy of worship, your devotion should not hinge on the absolute accuracy of any specific holy book. Whether any given story in the bible is accurate or folk tail it doesn’t change God a bit.

#19 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 March 2005 - 03:51 PM

God has written his law on the hearts of all men, what this means is that evolutionists even know God is real if they look past their desires to not be accountable to a higher power.


Thanks for illustrating my point. This is what is often referred to as: 'psychological projection'. In attempting to imagine what it must be like to be an atheist, the creationist simply has no other conceptual framework to apply other than to impose his own system of values, and appears quite surprised when his subject finds this insulting.

#20 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 15 March 2005 - 09:19 PM

Thanks for illustrating my point. This is what is often referred to as: 'psychological projection'. In attempting to imagine what it must be like to be an atheist, the creationist simply has no other conceptual framework to apply other than to impose his own system of values, and appears quite surprised when his subject finds this insulting.

View Post


I'm never surprised when non-believers appear insulted or angered. The want to be your own god, and not be accountable to a god, is a love for ones own worldy indulgances. When someone tells them that they are accountable to God and that they need to follow God's law to avoid damnation, thats plenty to anger or offend the un-saved man.

The Bible states that God law is written on all mens hearts, so it would appear a straw man alert is in order.
Your asserting that the Bible has no other conceptual framework to apply to atheists?

Your basicely saying that God has no clue how you feel? But you do? You were once a monkey in your faith, so in the words of Charles Darwin:
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals are of any value or at all trustworthy.
Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"


I prefer to trust Gods word, the Bible rather fallible mans word, which is pretty much a monkey mind in comparison to Gods infinate wisdom.

ThanX,Louie Buren <><




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users