Should Creationism be taught in schools?

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

bpeppaz
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:06 pm

Should Creationism be taught in schools?

Postby bpeppaz » Tue May 08, 2007 11:18 pm

Well, me I personally feel that these religious close-minded nut jobs should stay out of schools. Evolution is the truth.

There is no evidence that any of the balogna in the Bible is real. On the other hand, there is so much solid evidence of evolution from fossils. And another thing, I remember this school I went to to well...never mind but this Elementary School near my house is teaching kids about the tooth fairy! The Tooth Fairy! For Science's sakes nothing that is without evidence should be taught in school.


so who's ready for a 342-page debate between Kyle the Skeptic and plk12345
O'Brien
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:05 pm

Postby O'Brien » Tue May 08, 2007 11:34 pm

The only time Creationism should ever be mentioned in school is if it's to trash it using evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science at all, and there's no need for an institution based on unscientific faith to tell any of us what should be taught as science.
Last edited by O'Brien on Tue May 08, 2007 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Every step back a step foward.
Every failure an extra opportunity for success.
Every day of defeat a victory!
plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Re: Should Creationism be taught in schools?

Postby plk12345 » Tue May 08, 2007 11:37 pm

bpeppaz wrote:so who's ready for a 342-page debate between Kyle the Skeptic and plk12345


oh please, im not, especially when he:
-post articles on psychology while completely ignoring things written in the same article

-claims to be an expert yet seems to lack common knowledge on the christian faith

- copies and pastes his arguments from other sources

- uses arguments that could just as easily be used to support bestiality

- posts ridiculous bias sources, and then accuses me of doing the same when i post legit sources

- resorts to infantile insults when i expose his ridiculous logic

- has a group of little cheerleaders who will flame me and spam the threads

- accuses me of being a creationist after i have said several times that i believe in Darwinism. But we all know he is in no position to argue for evolution

- quotes the founding fathers out of context, and tries to deny religious effect on the way society view social issues

...no, i don't want to go through that again



as for creationism, keep that out of schools. Even Catholic schools don't teach that stuff

the days that christians should take the genisis 100% literally are long gone

there is no inherent contradiction between religious belief and science. Evolution is 100 percent compatible with religious belief, just ask francis s collins

other biblical verses are metaphorical, so the genisis can also be metaphorical. You can still believe in the biblical stories while accepting the theory of evolution

don't mention the domestication of the dog cliche, the hebrew word for father can also mean ancestor, there are gaps in the genealogy

Evolution is a compelling theory that makes sense. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its holes in some cases. I just f*cking hate it when anti theists use it in their attempts to sh*t on religion

e.g.
O'Brien wrote:The only time Creationism should ever be mentioned in school is if it's to trash it using evolution.


ill read some posts and join in
Last edited by plk12345 on Wed May 09, 2007 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Postby gtaca2005 » Tue May 08, 2007 11:51 pm

"Oh my Science!.... (beeping), Boom!" South Park, Season 10.5
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
SuperMaids
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:35 am

Postby SuperMaids » Wed May 09, 2007 12:00 am

As i always do when asked a question pertaining to Evolution, i'll answer it in the words of the mghty South Park; 'Evolution is the answer to the question of HOW and not the question of WHY' this is something athiest's convieniantly ignore, using the prooven theory as another way of thrashing religion, when in fact it doesn't discount religion (unless you believe the bible's eldest parts to the letter); there may be a G-d out there and science hasn't prooven otherwise, because so far it hasn't answered the WHY, only religion and philosophy have; which is why, despite the fact i believe Evolution should be taught in school science classes as FACT (as it's been all but prooven due to genetics), and Creation should stay out of the realm of science (coz it's been disprooven by dates of the Earth and the universes creation taking more than the litteral seven days, it isn't litteral science) it should still be taught in whatever yo Yankees call Religious Education (theology class?).
On a side topic, when i mentioned Athiests i did of course mean only the most outspoken ones (the ones that appear on threads like this because of their radical beliefes, often as insanely naive as the religious right in their beliefe that without religion, Earth would be paradise) unfortunately appear to like the taste of their own excrement, as they have their pompus heads so far up themselves, blaming ALL wars (even those which religion had nothing to do with or was simply an excuse for) on religion and ALL intolerance in society (ignoring athiest intolerence of the even moderately religious, as well as obvious economic, political, personal and cultural reasons for hatred) on it as well as anything else they can think to bung in!
Image
plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Postby plk12345 » Wed May 09, 2007 12:04 am

^
exactly, dawkins pisses me off way more than any creationist ever will
gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Postby gtaca2005 » Wed May 09, 2007 12:06 am

SuperMaids wrote:which is why, despite the fact i believe Evolution should be taught in school science classes as FACT (as it's been all but prooven due to genetics), and Creation should stay out of the realm of science (coz it's been disprooven by dates of the Earth and the universes creation taking more than the litteral seven days, it isn't litteral science)


Yes, but when the bible said days, that is only English. Through the translations, the word for days in another language of the bible (not sure what language) means eras. So in the original text, it means eras, not days. Just throwing it out there.
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
Cold Machine
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:42 am

Postby Cold Machine » Wed May 09, 2007 12:07 am

Nah. Don't teach it. There's no point. The religious nut parents are doing a pretty good job of teaching their kids sheer bullsh*t without any help from the schools.
"A minute's success pays the failure of years." - Robert Browning
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Re: Should Creationism be taught in schools?

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Wed May 09, 2007 12:33 am

So plk has hijacked the thread to mount another attack. No surprise, coming from a shallow anencephalic degenerate like him.
plk12345 wrote:oh please, im not, especially when he:
-post articles on psychology while completely ignoring things written in the same article

Oh really? The arguments that matched yours were only mentioned as historical notes, and did not represent the thesis of the articles. Stop whining.
-claims to be an expert yet seems to lack common knowledge on the christian faith

You're a brainwashed fundamentalist, and you don't speak for all Christians. You have no idea how many times I've heard the crap you spew all the time, all of which has already been proven wrong by none other than modern Christian theologians.
- copies and pastes his arguments from other sources

Wrong. I've never taken credit for someone else's arguments. Whenever I've gotten them from elsewhere, I've said so.
- uses arguments that could just as easily be used to support bestiality

You were proven wrong on this several times, and even Big-Will said that this reasoning does not belong in the debate.
- posts ridiculous bias sources, and then accuses me of doing the same when i post legit sources

This is a flat out lie. Most of my sources are from university sites or news organizations.
- resorts to infantile insults when i expose his ridiculous logic

You haven't the slightest grasp of basic logic, and you're hardly in any position to condemn anyone else for resorting to personal attacks, since you include them in every single idiotic post of yours.
- has a group of little cheerleaders who will flame me and spam the threads

You brought that on yourself.
- accuses me of being a creationist after i have said several times that i believe in Darwinism. But we all know he is in no position to argue for evolution

You used the term "created" several times, and in the context of teleology. If you're not a creationist, then stop using such ridiculous arguments.
- quotes the founding fathers out of context, and tries to deny religious effect on the way society view social issues

Keep repeating the same bullsh*t. Maybe that'll make it true. I didn't even have to debunk you on your most recent attack thread on the issue, because everyone easily saw right through your claims.

~~~~~~~~

Creationism belongs only in elective courses on comparative religion, where it should be taught alongside creation myths from other cultures and religions.
O'Brien
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:05 pm

Postby O'Brien » Wed May 09, 2007 1:32 am

SuperMaids wrote:'Evolution is the answer to the question of HOW and not the question of WHY' this is something athiest's convieniantly ignore

Actually my college Biology teacher has just finished instructing why evolution occurs; gene mutation. If a mutation for any organism manages to prove benefitial for its survival, the chances are greater that it will have offspring to pass this mutation on. Therefore we have evolution. While scientists are able to observe gene mutation which causes evolution, they have failed to observe a god acting as the ultimate driving force behind evolution. If a theory can't be backed up with empirical evidence, it simply isn't valid.

there may be a G-d out there and science hasn't prooven otherwise, because so far it hasn't answered the WHY, only religion and philosophy have

Religion and philosophy however are two inferior methodologies compared to science. Unlike religion and philosophy, science bases itself on empirical methods of obtaining evidence and being able to eliminate false theories based on this evidence. Religion and philosophy on the other hand have no such ways to prove their theories correct, and so they are fundenmentally flawed and shouldn't be relied on to answer why things happen.

as they have their pompus heads so far up themselves, blaming ALL wars (even those which religion had nothing to do with or was simply an excuse for) on religion and ALL intolerance in society (ignoring athiest intolerence of the even moderately religious, as well as obvious economic, political, personal and cultural reasons for hatred) on it as well as anything else they can think to bung in!

Yet religion has indeed shown it's capability to feed off despair and cause war (even if not all of them). The Crusades are a fine example of showing how religion alone can spark conflict. Ever noticed how Islam plays a very big role in making Al-Queda appear legitimate? Have you ever seen any 'intolerant' atheists kill innocents in the name of proving the non-existance of a deity?

While other causes of conflict will not go away anytime soon, religion is unique in that modern society can function without it. Science now preforms the job of explaining the world around us, and governments no longer need to evoke God's will to justify their right to maintain authority or to dictate our morals. Religion meanwhile still serves as a seemless way to promote intolence; gays shouldn't have rights according to the Bible, Islamic laws force women to be subservient to men, and so on. Do you think anyone would give a whome bunch of sh*t about the Holy Land today if no religion existed. Society needs to recognize that religion is very capable of creating excuses for intolerence, and that doing away with it will remove many obstacles (if not all) towards human progress.
Image

Every step back a step foward.
Every failure an extra opportunity for success.
Every day of defeat a victory!
SuperMaids
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:35 am

Postby SuperMaids » Wed May 09, 2007 1:53 am

Religious right/athiest far left; PLEASE STAND DOWN! before you turn this into another 'i don't believe in G-d and anyone who does is a doo-doo brain' or 'i believe in G-d and anyone who doesn't is a doo-doo soul.'
Evolution is a scientific fact and must be treateds as such, and surely has to be taught; creation is disprooven, and obviously mustn't enter the scientific curiculum ever to prevent religious fanaticism and to stop the conjoining of politics and religion (woah, that was a bit pretentious... i feel like an athiest!)
But it should be taught in philosophy and theology lessons, because without alternative answers to the question of WHY the universe is here, everyone will just follow the same path their parents and friends have taken, leading to groups choosing to segrigae themselves, leading to misunderstanding and hate among groups (if you follow my tenuous links there, congrats, but i think it would work out like this if people were only givven ONE answer to the most important unanswered question of our time)
Image
Tweeks_Coffee
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:14 pm

Postby Tweeks_Coffee » Wed May 09, 2007 2:30 am

You'd have a pretty sh*t education if you didn't learn anything beyond one point of view. I'm just saying is all...

No, creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. If you take a theology class, then you should be taught some of the basics of what the majority of humans believe/believed. At the very least, you should learn the basics so you can have some educated arguments if you ever get into a debate with a religious fanatic.
Image
O'Brien
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:05 pm

Postby O'Brien » Wed May 09, 2007 2:33 am

SuperMaids wrote:But it should be taught in philosophy and theology lessons, because without alternative answers to the question of WHY the universe is here, everyone will just follow the same path their parents and friends have taken, leading to groups choosing to segrigae themselves, leading to misunderstanding and hate among groups (if you follow my tenuous links there, congrats, but i think it would work out like this if people were only givven ONE answer to the most important unanswered question of our time)

Could you care explain how without unscientific answers about why the universe formed, it will somehow spark more violence and intolerance outside of debates? Are you even aware that humanity over its long history of existance has been unable to agree on just who or what created the universe using religion alone?

First off, science (and atheism for that matter) unlike religion or philosophy does not come loaded with a set of morals and fictional stories to determine right and wrong and et cetera. Science's sole function is to merely provide answers concerning the workings of the universe. As this process is very open to change in the event a piece of evidence contradicts a supposedly established theory (in fact that's the whole foundation of science; to change our theories based on newer understanding), it is quite a peaceful one. Science has yet to cause violent conflict because scientists couldn't agree on what scientific theory is correct.

However if science can only provide one well-proven answer to a question, that's just the way it is. Just because someone thinks that there's ought to be another reason why something was created or how it works does not mean their alternate theory is correct. Only the scientific method (with help from technology) can accurately determine the validity of a claim; answers from priests or philosophers who don't apply the scientific method are frankly unable to be verified and thus proven to be correct. In fact, all religions and philosophies essentially amount to are various Wikipedias, each of them producing a different Wikiality which are not only left unverified by science, but often conflict with each other. Science meanwhile lacks the conflict inherent with religious teachings, as scientifically-based theories can actually be backed up with more than mere words written in an offline predecessor of Wikipedia.
Image

Every step back a step foward.
Every failure an extra opportunity for success.
Every day of defeat a victory!
Sizzling Lynn
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:20 pm

Postby Sizzling Lynn » Wed May 09, 2007 2:39 am

It might apply to Universities/Colleges. That way people can choose whether to study the subject or not...here I go again, stating the obvious. :roll:
Image
Nommel
Posts: 2484
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:37 pm

Postby Nommel » Wed May 09, 2007 2:40 am

Science class is where you learn about science. Creationism is not a scientific topic; it is a religious one. Even most religious leaders will agree that science and religion are two different things. Therefore, if you are going to teach creationism in science class, you must first change the name of the class to "religion class". Regardless of who created the universe, it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That will remain true until someone proves otherwise.

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests