how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

[IanC]

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

 

[rdean]

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

I don't believe that's true. With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.

This isn't 1980.

 

[Foxfyre]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

 

[IanC]

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

I don't believe that's true. With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.

This isn't 1980.

hahaha. consensus, right? what are the main points of advancement since 1980?

 

[blu]

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

lol what an idiot you are... evolution has nothing to do with the 'beginning of life' so of course it doesn't explain it

 

[edthecynic]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

How could you have possibly passed a physics course when you have no understanding of the FLoT??????

The "substance" of the universe is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the PROVEN FLoT. We know energy exists because it can be measured, please prove that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.

 

[Old Rocks]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.

Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".

There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.

But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.

No basis at all except genetics and fossils. Grew up in a fundementalist evangelical home. I despise willfull ignorance. There is little that you can do to damage your children more than to indoctrinate them into the belief that denial of reality is acceptable. And I read the Bible cover to cover twice before I was 12. End of my religious belief.

 

[Old Rocks]

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

I don't believe that's true. With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.

This isn't 1980.

hahaha. consensus, right? what are the main points of advancement since 1980?

Major improvements in our understanding of genetics. The maping of our genome and that of other life has shown how intricaley we are connected to all life on this smal planet.

In geology, much better understanding of the conditions that were in place at the time of abiogenisis. And the conditions under which life evolved.

 

[AllieBaba]

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

lol what an idiot you are... evolution has nothing to do with the 'beginning of life' so of course it doesn't explain it

You're a regular one trick pony, aren't you?

And while I agree with you, I'd like to know why it always becomes an issue in discussions about creation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

How could you have possibly passed a physics course when you have no understanding of the FLoT??????

The "substance" of the universe is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the PROVEN FLoT. We know energy exists because it can be measured, please prove that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.

When you can show proof of how something that exists does so without being created, we probably won't need to discuss whether a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.

 

[Old Rocks]

All hail Shiva!

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't need to discuss Creationism or ID here as valid or not. We merely need to come to agree that the former should be taught in a non-science class.

 

[AllieBaba]

You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.

Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".

There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.

But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.

No basis at all except genetics and fossils. Grew up in a fundementalist evangelical home. I despise willfull ignorance. There is little that you can do to damage your children more than to indoctrinate them into the belief that denial of reality is acceptable. And I read the Bible cover to cover twice before I was 12. End of my religious belief.

Wow. Twice, huh?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?

Absolutely not.

 

[edthecynic]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

How could you have possibly passed a physics course when you have no understanding of the FLoT??????

The "substance" of the universe is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the PROVEN FLoT. We know energy exists because it can be measured, please prove that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.

When you can show proof of how something that exists does so without being created, we probably won't need to discuss whether a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.

It would be the same way an uncreated creator exists without being created, except we can prove energy exists!!!! And we can prove energy cannot be created or destroyed. Prove your uncreated creator exists.

The FLoT was proven with a REPEATABLE experiment by James Prescott Joule, you probably have a surge protector on your computer and/or stereo system rated in Joules, named after him in honor of this great achievement.

 

[IanC]

I don't believe that's true. With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.

This isn't 1980.

hahaha. consensus, right? what are the main points of advancement since 1980?

Major improvements in our understanding of genetics. The maping of our genome and that of other life has shown how intricaley we are connected to all life on this smal planet.

In geology, much better understanding of the conditions that were in place at the time of abiogenisis. And the conditions under which life evolved.

yes we have greater understanding. but that understanding doesnt necessarily lead closer us to the conclusion that life just appeared. if anything it demonstrates the impossible odds of it happening. only the fact that there is life existing gives us any hope that we might someday be able to explain it. but that day is not today.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm sorry my eyes always glaze over about 8 characters into whatever you submit.

Based on the global deficiency of intelligence you have presented, I'm surprised your attention span is even THAT long.

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.

How incomplete is the theory of evolution? What part of it is incomplete? It has nothing to do with how life started, just how life EVOLVES. So what part is incomplete? It sounds like you have a poor understanding of evolution.

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

Yes, being that they all equally have NO PLAUSIBILITY whatsoever. Just as predicted: you completely avoided the previous question so as not to incriminate your closeted religious agenda.

 

[geauxtohell]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

They just aren't plausible scientific theories. Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force. Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.

 

[Foxfyre]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

They just aren't plausible scientific theories. Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force. Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.

I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method. I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.

But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.

We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.

So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.

 

[edthecynic]

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

They just aren't plausible scientific theories. Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force. Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.

I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method. I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.

But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.

We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.

So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.

Your post is perfect proof why a Creationist should not be allowed to teach science!!!!
Your Creationist science "teacher" deliberately failed to teach you anything about the FLoT, for obvious reasons!!!!!!

Please explain how a Law of science that can be PROVEN by a REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT can't be "examined or TESTED"?????
This should be a real winner!
Oh, that's right, you will avoid this post!