I know I've heard good (or at least relatively reasonable) arguments for creationism in the past. This is really, really not one of them.
I know I've heard good (or at least relatively reasonable) arguments for creationism in the past. This is really, really not one of them.
The fact that these people think these arguments are logical is very very scary. More reason that creationism should not be taught in science classes.
"Seeing the landscape at this superficial level only captures its boring uniformity, not allowing you to immerse yourself in the spirit of the place; for that you must stop at least several days."
~Che Guevara, "The Motorcycle Diaries"
Will someone please explain to me why creation and evolution are supposed to be mutually exclusive? I believe wholeheartedly in both. I read the first chapter of Genesis, and it sounds just like it happened - first a flash of light, then water and land, then basic life forms which gradually gave way to more complex life forms, with humans appearing most recently. The theory of evolution does not contradict this. It didn't take six literal days, but the problem here is with people who take the Bible too literally; it's got nothing to do with evolution. Ancient peoples just couldn't wrap their heads around the concept of billions of years. It took more scientific discovery and cultural maturity to figure out the scientific details.
But evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive, and I don't understand why everyone keeps assuming that they are. To me, evolution explains HOW creation happened. So why the controversy??





There's the more sneaky version of creationism, "intelligent design"
And, the more amusing version:
http://www.circadian.org/design.htmlStupid Designs
The proponents of Intelligent Design correctly point out that many biological structures and processes are so elaborate that one may feel inclined to infer the existence of an intelligent designer. However, many other structures and processes are so awkwardly arranged that, if we were to use the same reasoning, we would be inclined to infer the existence of a stupid designer. Of course, there is no conceptual impediment to a theory of Stupid Design. However, such theory would be of no use to religious groups, as it would imply a blasphemy: that the creator of the world did not always act intelligently. The very idea of intelligent design requires the complementary idea of stupid design, which ruins the strategy of sneaking religion into science.
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
i agree, they don't have to be mutually exclusive at all. however, creationism implies that an intelligent force is responsible for all that exists and evolves. i think that most of the people who want to teach creationism in school want to do so from a Christian point of view, and this could be problematic for students of other faiths. things could quickly turn into a theological debate, which would be fine in a comparative religions class or one that touches on philosophy or discourse. this goes outside the bounds of science. and yes, evolution is a theory, but the fossil record is used as evidence, and the exact mechanisms of evolution are debated and changed as the record expands....that type of thing belongs in a science curriculum. admittedly, there are scientific "facts" that creationists use as evidence, and some do a good job arguing these points. in a college class, i could see creationism and evolution being argued side by side.Originally Posted by Yekhefah
sorry...this went off on a tangent...in summary, i don't think creationism can be taught in middle school and high school without religion entering into the picture and clouding things (i can picture some teacher using the "reasoning" of the person in this video, pushing an agenda)....those are personal things that can be thought out at home or religious institutions. just my opinion on the matter...people can believe in both, no reason why not.
"Seeing the landscape at this superficial level only captures its boring uniformity, not allowing you to immerse yourself in the spirit of the place; for that you must stop at least several days."
~Che Guevara, "The Motorcycle Diaries"



That was bloody strange...
"That's why I never kiss 'em on the mouth!" ~Jayne
Originally Posted by Yekhefah
WOW! Well said! Why can't people see it?
“Since the ACLU is trying to take away the word ‘Christmas,’ we thought it would be a great time to send the group a Christmas card this year. If everybody did this, they would be buried in mail.”





For a second there I thought it was gonna turn into a hand job lesson.![]()
Number of times Rickrolled on stage: 6
*******************************
Marasmus ... "Ladies don't fart. They butt-laugh."
Marasmus says, "Oh no, that wasn't gas, it was merely a rectal chuckle."
Marek says, "A friend of mine got punched in the face by a dominatrix stripper about two weeks ago and I thought of you."





Well, c'mon over!Originally Posted by PaigeDWinter
![]()
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"





^^^^ Ahahahahaa. Not many men like it when I grip the cock. There are usually medical sounds and clothespins involved!
![]()
Number of times Rickrolled on stage: 6
*******************************
Marasmus ... "Ladies don't fart. They butt-laugh."
Marasmus says, "Oh no, that wasn't gas, it was merely a rectal chuckle."
Marek says, "A friend of mine got punched in the face by a dominatrix stripper about two weeks ago and I thought of you."





Haha. Paige you crack me up. I had to go back and listen to it after I read your post.





The controversy stems from the fact that creationism does not follow the scientific process and hence cannot be called science. You can label it anything you like such as the new term, "Intelligent Design", but it really boils down to the fact that there are virtually no scientist on earth that debate that evolution is the way it happend. It's pretty much an established scientific fact at this point.Originally Posted by Yekhefah
Now creation on the other hand or "intelligent design" is based on the works of one book...the bible. Which was created by people retelling stories over and over and over again for generations before someone finally started writing it down. This is not to be confused with the contradictary works of other religious artifacts which, literally, a committee of religious folk decided on which was the party line they wanted to tow. For example, most people are not familliar with Josephus. He was a guy who also did miracles, cured the blind, walked on water, did all the other cool Godly stuff and also did it at the same time as Jesus, but the committee decided the Jesus story was easier to swallow so they went with that. There is no science at all behind religion and they actually pride themselves as being NON-scientific.
For example, the Scientific Method involves only four simple principles:1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Testing
4. Debate
Religion pretty much stops at #1, relies on blind faith and human interpretation of unexplained or made-up things instead of expanding thought into #2. They avoid #3 completely and in most religions, #4 will either get you killed, ostracised, or excommunicated. After all, you aren't allowed to speak against the "word of God" even though it was created by people, told and retold hundreds of times, and then voted on by a committee. Science is flexible and changes as we learn more. It is always open to change and that's the key component to science. There are times change is met with resistance and yet to be actual science, ideas and conceps are always open to change. We're going through that right now in fact with the debate and now open acceptance that Pluto is no longer considered a planet because it doesn't meet the scientific doctorums that science adheres to. There was hypothesis, testing, and debate and then a new conclusion was reached.
Religion on the other hand is rigid. It is not open to change at all and starts with the work of fiction, not fact. Fiction story telling is what most religion is actually based upon, it then moves to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and then sometimes even torturing or killing those that disagree.
Hey, if you want to teach religion in school, I'm totally cool with it actually. Just don't do it under the guise of science because the two have nothing to do with one another.
The ORIGINAL Stripper Sales School
-
Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. ~Abraham Lincoln





That whole ridiculous banana argument just further proves the theory of evolution, quite frankly. "Yes, but monkeys gripped them first. Their fingers are exactly the same. Oh, didn't think of that? Your soda can analogy falls flat. Pleaseshutupokaythanks."
waffles are just pancakes with little squares on them.
Sorry but if your a believer you know this is not true. The bible was written by God through people. And I think that there are more books other than the bible that have these "storys" in them.Originally Posted by DancerWealth
“Since the ACLU is trying to take away the word ‘Christmas,’ we thought it would be a great time to send the group a Christmas card this year. If everybody did this, they would be buried in mail.”
Creationism and/or "intelligent design" and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive, except from the things like creationism putting a timeline of a few thousand years on the history of the universe, which is pretty much akin to saying that the world is flat and the stars are little points of light on a crystal bubble.
Intelligent design can be argued, but unless you can test it and quantify it, it's more properly in a philosophy class than a science class.
The problem is that anti-science people started and use both those approaches to attack scientific processes (but just pretty much evolutionary science - they don't seem to have a problem heating up food in a microwave or setting up websites) and introduce religious instruction into science class, where it clearly does not belong.
Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
And evolution is simply the first major target. Already they have minor targets on such things as radio carbon dating, geology, astrophysics, etc. Do not underestimate the mischief they can create!
DW, we clearly have a different view of religion. You seem to think that all religion is fundamentalist Christianity, and that is not the case. My faith certainly isn't "rigid," and it is definitely open to adaptation. It wouldn't have survived for 5000 years if it wasn't.
I'm not saying religion should be taught in public schools, or that religion trumps science. You're completely missing my point, which is that religion and science can be two different and equally valid ways of looking at the same thing. They are for different circumstances and tell us different things, but that doesn't mean that one would automatically render the other invalid.
I don't see why people assume that anyone who believes in creation must deny evolution. Speaking as a believer in the Creator, I believe that evolution is *how* creation happened.





One of my favorite dive bars has a big sign over the bar that says "No Religion. No Politics." It's so much nicer that way.
waffles are just pancakes with little squares on them.



i agree there mrchristopher. the theories of evolution and creation never made much sense to me and i was taugh both in school, i got to hear compleing arguments for both sides. the bottom line is....that guy in the video is really really stupid.
but i do agree that creationism should NOT be taught in public schools...unless we can lable the "creator" something generic...remember there are more religions out there than just christianity, and each one has its own creation story.
Creationism has no place in a science class because it is easy to see that it is not science. Science can be tested. Creationism says the answer is "poof" goddidit. Since we cannot recreate poof goddidit, it is not testable, quantifiable, and disprovable and therefore is not science. As it stands, god is the gaps of science. Abiogenisis is hard to explain, human conscienceness is hard to explain. When we don't understand something, people insert goddidit magic as a placeholder. With each new discovery, the gaps are filled and god is replaced with knowledge. After all, human kind used to credit the rise of the sun, harvests, fertility, lightning strikes, etc all to acts of various gods. If we look at human history, our levels of knowledge, our changing cultural values, and our RELIGIONS it is painfully obvious that our created religions have co-evolved with human societal standards of the time, not the other way around. Religion is a culture characteristic, just like beauty standards, food preparation, and mating rituals. As such, it has no place in a biology class. Creationism can readily be discussed in an anthropology course on world religions, which would cover all religions and their creation myths with equal merit.
And ps Kirk Cameron is a banana holding dufus for making these ridiculous videos. I can't believe I ever had his poster on my wall.





Sounds like my kind of place, but the probablly don't wanna serve red bull, coke, and Rosemount Estate 2003 Shiraz.Originally Posted by MrChristopher
One more cup of coffee for the road,
One more cup of coffee 'fore I go
To the valley below....
Slowly moseying my way to the exit.
A Blogging?





Some food for thought...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
The ORIGINAL Stripper Sales School
-
Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. ~Abraham Lincoln
Quite so, Yek. An elegant solution to the debate. But I think we all know that creation advocates are pushing a political agenda. Threatened by science and, more broadly, secular society, they use the straw man of "Evolution vs Creationism" as a tactic, hoping to return American culture to those good ol' days--ya know, before women got the vote.Originally Posted by Yekhefah
Intelligent Design doesn't even pass the most basic smell test. If ID were actually correct, why do we have giraffes? Is it really necessary to have an animal with a neck that long? Why couldn't God have just created shorter trees? Why do we have fish, amphibians, *and* land-dwelling animals? Why do we have mayflies, who in their adult form do not have mouths and die within 24 hours of being hatched? How is that intelligent? Why have species gone extinct? Why do we have *new* species emerging? ID doesn't explain any of that.
Originally Posted by aviendha
Because God works in mysterious ways and who are we to ask such questions?![]()
Bookmarks