Leave education to the experts, not creationists

[Zythryn]

We were taught about biblical creationism in a comparitive mythology section in our Humanities class (along with other creation mythos).

[Eclogite]

I find this an interesting contrast:

The US has a very high proportion of Christians, including many fundamentalists.

As I understand it the teaching of religion and acts of worship are strictly curtailed within public schools.

 

The UK has a very high proportion of atheists and agnostics.

Christianity, specifically C of E protestantism is the official state religion. Religious services are routinely conducted in school. Religious Instruction, which certainly used to focus on Christianity, is compulsory.

 

I have no conclusions or explanations, but I do find it intriguing.

[Theory5]

no; he is not right & it's not a good science idea. he is a creationist promoting his unfounded anti-evolution crap yet again here. :confused:

Where does he say anything about anti-evolution? All HydrogenBond is saying is both sides should have a chance.

Even though I really dont belive that any religious teachings should be taught in public school because 'ideas' like "intelligent" falling and "intelligent" design have no what-so-ever to back it up and I think those ideas have absolutly no basis in reality.

 

Or perhaps we should let hydrogenbond speak for himself/herself.

 

so what's taught in public school isn't important, but your heard-in-passing is!!??

Exactly, that should give you a little idea of what public school is like. During high-school I would log onto Hypography just to learn.

 

:shrug: as to the bible, it is not a legal requirement under the constitution or in any court. some presidents have not used a bible, and you can look that up yourself if you think facts matter, or not if not. :naughty:

 

Oh, thanks I didn't know it was optional for the president to use a bible or not.

But you can't deny that religion is still a big part of A country, wether it's using propaganda to align their actions with the local deity(Such as "God Bless This Nation") or quoting scripture in a campaign speech, or allowing the teaching (I should say preaching) of abstinence without following up with acceptable alternitives (correct me if I am wrong, but I belive the church pushed for that, as well as those 'chasity' rings).

 

We were taught about biblical creationism in a comparitive mythology section in our Humanities class (along with other creation mythos).

Now, that would be an acceptable way to teach creationism in school, allowing somebody to distinguish between the two and separate myth from fact easily enough for a young adult.

 

Oh and turtle, I think its better to follow up your accusations with facts, such as threads in which somebody might promote some sort of anti-evolutionary idea.

[Turtle]

Where does he say anything about anti-evolution? All HydrogenBond is saying is both sides should have a chance.

 

you are mistaken. he has been getting away with his little digs for years now here, & i'm callin' it out. just try & find one link he has given in support of any of his fringe rantings. don't bother; they aren't there. :confused:

 

Even though I really dont belive that any religious teachings should be taught in public school because 'ideas' like "intelligent" falling and "intelligent" design have no what-so-ever to back it up and I think those ideas have absolutly no basis in reality.

 

that is an incomplete sentence and as such makes no sense. :naughty: i suggest this goes to why you don't get what h-boff is saying, i.e. you are young & have read fairly little & written fairly less than that. this is a limit on your comprehension that only time can amend. never stop learning.

 

Or perhaps we should let hydrogenbond speak for himself/herself.

 

i wish. he'll just dodge & blather more babble that does not address the issues. you can go read all his posts & threads if you doubt me, but as they en toto support my assertion(s) I'm hardly going to list them all.

 

Oh, thanks I didn't know it was optional for the president to use a bible or not.

 

where were you when they taught about the constitution?

 

But you can't deny that religion is still a big part of A country, wether it's using propaganda to align their actions with the local deity(Such as "God Bless This Nation") or quoting scripture in a campaign speech, or allowing the teaching (I should say preaching) of abstinence without following up with acceptable alternitives (correct me if I am wrong, but I belive the church pushed for that, as well as those 'chasity' rings).

i can argue, and have with supporting quotes, that many of the founding fathers weren't religious and moreover not christian as you imply. this is why the constitution has the clause about separating it from government. let's try just one, and forgive the repetition.

 

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Thomas Jefferson quotes

 

 

Now, that would be an acceptable way to teach creationism in school, allowing somebody to distinguish between the two and separate myth from fact easily enough for a young adult.

again, creationism is crap* & not science & has no place in public schools. period. this is what the separated churches get to do on their own time & dime.

 

Oh and turtle, I think its better to follow up your accusations with facts, such as threads in which somebody might promote some sort of anti-evolutionary idea.

 

i covered this above i think. if you think it's worth more of a fight, try me as i am in a fighting mood. :shrug:

 

*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

[Turtle]

now thens; where was i. oh yes. :rant: as this thread is in the subforum Pedagogy, and rightly so in a twisted way (subject expansion coming soon to a paragraph near you), i'll take that tack. T-mon (akaTheory5 ;)), it is your young tender brain i intend to eat...erh...pedagogate...erhm...instruct. :phones: :hyper:, so don't run off too far. when you come around saying such things as you say, i get the sense you have a flavor character of having given over some time to considering them which is prone to fattening up your brain. well, call it learning if you wish; some say sushi, some say sooshi. :eek2: if there's something i want to say explicitly, it is be careful whose wagon you hitch up to. the rest is of course implicit, which is to say "between the lines", and this is a type of reading that comes only with experience.

 

so thens; what next? oh yes, that expansion. Michaelangelica, oh starter of this thread and writer of said thread op, i love you like a brother. which if you don't see it coming means in this context i'm going to scold you. :shrug: :D .... what the hell were you thinking you wirery wizzened old plant-loving downunderian!!! i know you get a tizzle over poking at us yanks, , but for stones sakes man, you're opening gates along the path of knowledge that only invite trolls & other creepy crawlys to throw boulders down on the way. i know this also gets a twizzle fo shizzle from some of our european friends here, (love you guys & gals like brothers & sisters too. ) when it comes to this anti-evolution business, but let me tell you it is not a laughing matter. our nation is falling behind in math & science and you not only let this crap through, you promote it. we got a damn add appearing above this thread promoting religion for cryin' out loud!!! WTF!!

 

well thens, this is a science site. Hypography: science for everyone, not any-thing-anybody-wants-to-spew-out-their-pie-hole for everyone. the more time we waste starting & continuing these boulder-to-knowledge types of threads, creationsim/intelligent design in particular as that is today's lesson, the less time we have to make progress on the way we came here for and the less room there is for others lurking in the wings. B)

 

that's a rap. ~

[freeztar]

I hear you Turtle, but the flip side is that creationism is still being taught and if everyone puts their noses up in the air and dismisses it, things will only get more muddled. Hypography has always been a great place for reason to champion science and put to rest a lot of misinformation, and even scurrilous information, roaming the interwebs.

 

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your measuring rod and Your Biology staff, they comfort me. :phones:

[Turtle]

I hear you Turtle, but the flip side is that creationism is still being taught and if everyone puts their noses up in the air and dismisses it, things will only get more muddled. Hypography has always been a great place for reason to champion science and put to rest a lot of misinformation, and even scurrilous information, roaming the interwebs.

 

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your measuring rod and Your Biology staff, they comfort me. :rant:

 

B) luv you like a brudda, brudda.:hyper: the thing is, we have debunked this crap too many times to count. i just passed my 5 year mark & i know wherof i speak. there is nothing new to present, this IS NOT science, & our archives are our rock. :eek2: we don't need more of it & i intend to give it a vigorous what-for everytime it rears its nasty rotten little heads. (medusa reference ). then there is the matter of most of this rubbish being against our rules. not gonna let that slide either. :shrug:

 

while this thread started with a legitimate article, though not a smart move starting it imo as i said above, it quickly went to crap as these threads pretty much all have. if it aint a new troll, it's an old one. did i mention NOT SCIENCE? so yeah; not gonna let it lie. (get it; lie? ) seriously though; enough is enough, i'm mad as hell, and i aint gonna take it anymore. :phones:

 

Should we teach creationism in public-school science classes? Of course we should—if we want to violate the Constitution, dumb down our students, and make our nation an international laughingstock.

 

 

The creationists won't admit it, but the debate is over, and they lost. Every time creationism has been brought into public schools, the courts have found it unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what label is used—"creation science," "intelligent design" (ID), or "the theory of abrupt appearance"—all are cut from the same unconstitutional cloth.

Creationism Left Out of Science Education for Valid Reasons - US News and World Report

[Eclogite]

However Turtle, while I have been dismissing Hydrogen Bond's posts for the inane nonsense they are for a considerable time, I have never noticed that he was a creationist. I believe it was precipitate and indeed somewhat rude of you to jump all over Theory5 - a relative newcomer - for failing to discern what seemed so clear to you.

 

Frankly, if I were Theory5 and felt your approach represented the norm for this forum I would probably head for the hills. I don't think that's what you want or intend, but you might want to think about it.

 

Now as a to a central part of your thesis: you argue, it seems, that we should practically outlaw creationist arguments from the forum. You point out, correctly, that all or almost all of these have already been debunked. The counter arguments can be found in our older threads. All well and good, but what of the youthful creationist who comes here, probably to trot out the same old arguments. Will they ever look into those threads and be convinced. I rather doubt it.

 

We have an opportunity, and I would think an obligation, to persistently and consistently continue to offer an education about evolution to any and all creationists who come here. It doesn't matter how often we have to repeat the same arguments, each time is new to the reader - and remember that for everyone actively engaged in a thread there are many lurkers.

 

We can make a difference. I know of several posters on other forums whose creationist views have been changed through what they have read there. We must continue.

[paigetheoracle]

However Turtle, while I have been dismissing Hydrogen Bond's posts for the inane nonsense they are for a considerable time, I have never noticed that he was a creationist. I believe it was precipitate and indeed somewhat rude of you to jump all over Theory5 - a relative newcomer - for failing to discern what seemed so clear to you.

 

Frankly, if I were Theory5 and felt your approach represented the norm for this forum I would probably head for the hills. I don't think that's what you want or intend, but you might want to think about it.

 

Now as a to a central part of your thesis: you argue, it seems, that we should practically outlaw creationist arguments from the forum. You point out, correctly, that all or almost all of these have already been debunked. The counter arguments can be found in our older threads. All well and good, but what of the youthful creationist who comes here, probably to trot out the same old arguments. Will they ever look into those threads and be convinced. I rather doubt it.

 

We have an opportunity, and I would think an obligation, to persistently and consistently continue to offer an education about evolution to any and all creationists who come here. It doesn't matter how often we have to repeat the same arguments, each time is new to the reader - and remember that for everyone actively engaged in a thread there are many lurkers.

 

We can make a difference. I know of several posters on other forums whose creationist views have been changed through what they have read there. We must continue.

 

Very well put! Funnily enough I said the same thing in response to the pasting I got when I put forward my point about evolution in The Philosophy of Science forum. You know, you know but I don't know you know, until I post - at which point I find out: All children open their mouths in excitement at what is a new discovery for them and every adult goes "Oh God, not again!" Understand the phenomena - you're supposed to be scientists, not hammer the effect because you don't like it.

[Theory5]

where were you when they taught about the constitution?

public school...:phones:

 

again, creationism is crap* & not science & has no place in public schools. period. this is what the separated churches get to do on their own time & dime.

 

I never said it was science. I don't agree with it, and I dont belive it should be offered as an alternative to science. But, I would have no problem with it being taught as mythology, in a separate class. This could be a fair compromise.

 

If you can't figure out and agree to a fair compromise (even for something as unscientific as religious matters) how can you continue to call yourself a free thinking individual capable of reasoning?

[Turtle]

However Turtle, while I have been dismissing Hydrogen Bond's posts for the inane nonsense they are for a considerable time, I have never noticed that he was a creationist. I believe it was precipitate and indeed somewhat rude of you to jump all over Theory5 - a relative newcomer - for failing to discern what seemed so clear to you.

 

 

:shrug: B) i have repsected you ever since you worked/walked me through the erroneous meme about earth's magnetic field being a shield. good to hear from you again. however, since Theory5 is actually a long-time member, and a likeable & genuinely curious sort imho, i question your reading of h-bonds creationist bent as well.

 

will get to responses to y'all asap, but gotta run at the moment. well, crawl. :phones:

[Turtle]

where were you when they taught about the constitution?

public school...;)

 

;) i knew eclog mis-pegged you and that you would not only not run off, but that you would challenge me anew. ya got spunk kid. :D so where then occured a disconnect in your education such that you did not know that the bible was not mentioned in the constitution anywhere, let alone in regards to the oath of office? state school board at fault? school district? public school teacher(s)? church? republicans? ( ) friends? internet? yourself?

 

I never said it was science. I don't agree with it, and I dont belive it should be offered as an alternative to science. But, I would have no problem with it being taught as mythology, in a separate class. This could be a fair compromise.

 

completely agree. well writ too by the by. :D however, that is not what the creationist promoting folk have in mind for US public education and i supported that assertion with two sources/links. did you read either? so too do they, i.e. creationist/intelligent designests/lipstick-on-the-pig-putereths come here to hypog to put it up as science, and if you have bothered to read the umpteen threads here in evidence of that, then doing so would be a fair compromise toward our shared/common knowledge.

 

If you can't figure out and agree to a fair compromise (even for something as unscientific as religious matters) how can you continue to call yourself a free thinking individual capable of reasoning?

 

i have not called myself that, but if that has been your impression of me then i accept it. you sir are too kind. that said, i'm also an irrascible scoundrel given to turgidity & little patience for willful ignorance. who ya gonna call? :D

 

now of course t-menator, while i have given my address to you personally, i am writing for all, and i only say so explicitly because apparently some think that the implicity of it is vauge. well, this brings us to h-bond's post that raised my hackles here in the first place. to whit:

 

Why is evolution and education so insecure? Why is it necessary to block all opposition, even to what evolutionists describe as mythology? It makes no sense, unless it is a battle of philosophy, that can only work, if we can indoctrinate the young, by brain washing them with only one detergent. ...

 

now, what is between the lines in that, i.e. implied or implicit, is that creationism is on a par to science. moreover, he implies science education is brainwashing which, if you do not know the connotation, is seen as a bad thing. so, the post is pro-creationist and anti-science education. it is not only in this post, it's in virtually all of hyposhot's posts. and while some others have suggested that the entire content, that is, the context, of a member's posting history is of no import, i assert it is of vital import. context is a critical element in any reading comprehension.

 

alrighty thens, that about raps it up for this round. smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :Guns: :eek: ;)

 

well, here's a copy of the us constitution in case ya want to do some reading. Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

[HydrogenBond]

One of the misunderstandings, within the debate between evolution and creationism, is connected to misinterpretation. Creation is about symbols and not signs. To give an example of the difference, consider the statue of liberty. As a "sign or linear thing, it is a large statue of a woman, made of copper, holding up a torch. But as a "symbol" it is a personification of the concept of liberty.

 

For example, when immigrants saw the statue, it represented more than just a nice looking statue a tourist might see. It represented freedom, opportunity, liberty, etc, and other emotions connected to their struggles of the past, the anticipation of their present and all their hopes and dreams for their future. It was more than linear. Relative to the current debate of evolution, we are stuck at the level of a linear thing, arguing copper, height and weight, but leave out discussion of the symbolic value. Creationism as a linear representation (literal) that does not equate well with the discoveries of science. But in terms of symbolism, the fit is better.

 

Let me give an example. Adam was the first human. As a linear sign, Science has strong evidence that shows that human evolution began much earlier, with fossil evidence that goes back several million years. Science wins the battle of linear.

 

But as a symbol, with a deeper meaning, Adam better corresponds in time to the rise of human civilization than does the fossils of Lucy. Adam symbolizes when the human mind changed in a way that allowed civilization. Civilization is a far more complicated social dynamics than a small migrant group of humans. Without some type of brain boost, they would remain tribal, since civilization does not follow logically from a simple genetic change. But civilization does follow logically, if the human mind/brain suddenly became more advanced. Adam symbolizes this upgrade.

 

One way to look at this is to consider education. Say we had no eduction, would genetics allow modern humans to naturally know math? If there was no math to begin with, would genetics alone allow math to spontaneously appear? It would take one or more minds slowly reinventing it for all. With the symbol of Adam, the upgrade process begins where the new mind can invent such things. We can not create a biological human in one day. But we can invent new things in one day.

 

Adam forms from the dust of the earth. God gives Adam the breath of life. Again I am reciting linear verse, before I interpret symbols. If Adam symbolizes the change in the mind and this change in the human mind forms from the earth (earth symbolizes instincts), this new mind forms out of instincts. The dust shows that it is not from any one instinct, but from bits and pieces of all the instincts and memories The God connection (not material) shows it was not purely instinctive, but something that although formed from bits and pieces of instinct, was not instinct. That is the mind.

 

Shortly after this upgrade human mind appears, it becomes lonely in the garden, as the linear story goes. Say you were the first to notice the orbit of the moon. Those around you are still tribal and connected to their instincts but like advanced apes. They are not yet, able to comprehend the significance; uggg! This upgrade can become a curse, because it isolates one from everyone else. What would you do? The story seems to indicate regression backwards. Adam is symbolically put to sleep (back to the unconscious like the rest). The new upgrade, sort of goes away, for a while. While asleep (back to instinct) Eve is created from one of his ribs (linear).

 

The symbolic focus here is on Adam's rib, which protects the heart. Adam was the new mind, while Eve symbolize enhanced human emotional intelligence (heart of Adam is more open) that appears in the females. Perhaps this was it analogous to the mother or wife, who may not understand her child's or husband's path, but stills support him. Symbolic Eve's new emotional intelligence can see beyond the limits of the previous tribal female, and can relate to the new male mind upgrade. Adam losing that extra rib, symbolizes his heart is more open/vulnerable. This allows this new emotional intelligence to enter and be more of an influence. Once the new mind can feel that he can relate, it expands again without another regressing, being influenced by the emotional intelligence, which helps him see how these new things relate to each other; civilization.

 

For example, the garden you have invented is like our children. You must provide and protect, while I tend to them and take care of them. Without that relationship he may invent and move on. The 1000 life of Adam symbolizes an era where the new upgrades learn to function/complement evolving civilization.

[REASON]

One of the misunderstandings, within the debate between evolution and creationism, is connected to misinterpretation. Creation is about symbols and not signs.....

 

For example, when immigrants saw the statue, it represented more than just a nice looking statue a tourist might see. It represented freedom, opportunity, liberty, etc, and other emotions connected to their struggles of the past, the anticipation of their present and all their hopes and dreams for their future. It was more than linear. Relative to the current debate of evolution, we are stuck at the level of a linear thing, arguing copper, height and weight, but leave out discussion of the symbolic value. Creationism as a linear representation (literal) that does not equate well with the discoveries of science. But in terms of symbolism, the fit is better.

 

The statements of yours that I bolded represent an excellent argument for why Creationism has no place in the science classroom. The symbolism you mention contained within the creation myth is tied to a religious perspective that seeks to connect with ones emotions and ones desire for a simple and succinct understanding of our relationship with the natural world and God. The world of science is not concerned with producing an understanding that is emotionally satisfying. It is interested in developing an understanding of the processes within the natural universe, including living organisms, based on evidence, facts, and sound theory. It is reality based. To include the emotional symbolism of Creationism either in biblical form, or some other morphed form intended to appear scientific, as a part of science education is not only disingenuous to a symbolic interpretation, but demeans the value of empirical research which is at the heart of the scientific method.

 

What's important to remember, I think, is that those who seek to inject some form of Creationism into the scientific classroom do not see it in the symbolic way you have described above. They see it as reality and truth, and their efforts are intended to undermine scientific theories that they find threatening to their chosen beliefs. They believe that certain scientific theories are damaging to society because they lead people away from spirituality and God. For instance, their efforts to transform the creation story into a scientifically oriented hypothesis like Intelligent Design and allow it to be taught as a scientific alternative is a way to hopefully shift student's thinking away from a scientific understanding to a religious one, and to provide legitimacy in their minds for the teachings of the church. But for scientific integrity to be maintained, this must not be allowed to happen in the public sphere.

 

Science doesn't reject Creationism because it is "insecure," as you put it. Science rejects Creationism because it is not science.

[Eclipse Now]

Speaking as a bible believing evangelical Christian with some very conservative theological positions, I totally agree! Science is about how we got here, Genesis 1-11 is about why we got here and Who we have to contend with!

 

The following paper outlines the number of theologians that read Genesis 1 figuratively, sometimes thousands of years prior to Darwin's theory of evolution. A metaphorical reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not some knee-jerk reaction to modern science, as if the Christians are all running around wildly trying to integrate the 'threat' of modern science into their faith, but is instead required by the hermeneutics of the passage.

 

Different questions have been asked of the early chapters of Genesis for many years. Thousands of years ago one Jewish thinker was wondering why God took 7 days to create the world when He was obviously powerful enough to do it instantaneously! This Jewish thinker would have known all about the importance of the symbolism behind the number 7 representing God's perfection, that creation was done in the perfect timing of God, creating a 'framework' for the later 10 commandments and structure of the week.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

 

What is important here is that we see the decoupling of how God actually made the world from the symbolism in the text over 2000 years before Darwin.

 

Even if you are not a Christian, grab a coffee and have a read as it will flesh out some very interesting history and symbolism behind one of Western Civilisation's greatest stories: written by my good friend Dr John Dickson.

 

http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything.pdf

 

I know too many Christian genetic palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists to think that the bible is somehow challenged by the theory of evolution. It is simply asking different questions, and answering them in a highly a metaphorical narrative that might sound strange to modern ears, but is rich with meaning to those familiar with ancient metaphors.

 

Personally, coupled with my understanding of the bible, the vast volumes of time in evolution of this universe, galaxy, and our own little world, and the near infinite distances of space tell me God is SOVEREIGN, and PATIENT, and yet still interested in my fleeting mist of a life. And that I find both humbling and comforting.

[Turtle]

Speaking as a bible believing evangelical Christian with some very conservative theological positions, I totally agree! ...

 

well writ. :eek: presumably it is the title thesis you agree with. that the quote, "creationist" group is antithetical to that agreement i think you also agree with me. :rant: i stick my neck further & suggest we agree this is a religious, say christian, movement to use religious principles/teachings/lipstick in public institutions by law, and that this is a clear & distinct violation of the letter & intent of the constitution's religious exclsuion clause, and found now in numerous precedent cases such as i earlier linked to to be "not science". :rant: (i made that a little extra flowery. :) :hihi: )

 

as to the rest of your post that i abridged, i think it is a fitting subject & form for a thread in the theology forum that suffers a dirth of such... shall we say "fair minded" & appropriate propositions.

 

g'donya mate. :shrug: now i'm off to polish my pitchfork. :lol: :snow:

[Eclipse Now]

Well, yeah. Separation of the church and state is also a concept that can be traced back to biblical origins, with the Apostle Paul's insistence that we are 'saved by grace, not works' and definitely not the law. The NT book of Romans lays open the foundations for Christians happily living under a variety of political systems, and so the modern democratic 'separation' of church and state is quite a happy one for Christians.

 

So forget the American constitution, this debate goes way back 2000 years. Indeed, even fairly secular historians such as Australian historian Geoffrey Blaimey have stated that modern democracy as it evolved in America was largely influenced by fairly 'democratic' principles already established in people's minds by protestant church practices.