Texas School Standards: Age of the Universe Erased

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Why is just one religious theory out of thousands being taught as an alternative to evolution?

because the people pushing these theories (theories not in the scientific sense) don't care about other religious views, they only care about their own and they only care about propagating their religion, many times trying more covert ways with different language. there are thousands of other creation stories that can be taught along side actual science to make some people feel good and countless real knowledge that can be ignored so people don't get offended.

people can have their beliefs. beliefs don't need to be taught in school. school is for what is known, not for something that can't be proved because it's not supposed to be proven because you're supposed to have faith.

keep administered faith out of the school system. if you don't want to hear about the age of the universe because it personally offends you or don't want to take science class because it contradicts your religious explanations, you can go in the lunch room and pray.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Well, if a recession can do at least one thing, it can force people to reevaluate their lives. I guess people are forced to think about what's really important to them.

i'm sure all the women who have no choice but to sell their bodies against their will to feed their children or men who resort to crime because they have to support their families find these times of reevaluation just dandy and are glad they are forced to think about what's really important for them. i bet quite a few of these people are religious and don't want to do these things but feel they have no choice. they have reevaluated what's really important to them and don't want their children to be on the streets. some of them probably attend services on sunday too.

 

[urbanboom]

i'm sure all the women who have no choice but to sell their bodies against their will to feed their children or men who resort to crime because they have to support their families find these times of reevaluation just dandy and are glad they are forced to think about what's really important for them. i bet quite a few of these people are religious and don't want to do these things but feel they have no choice. they have reevaluated what's really important to them and don't want their children to be on the streets. some of them probably attend services on sunday too.

Ummmm... how many people do you know that lost their jobs and then turned to prostitution in this recession? I understand you're trying to be dramatic, but that doesn't seem really realistic. What I was refering to was the people who are finding that in a era of go-go and excess, money wasn't really their first love. I bet many of them (including myself) are realizing that their joy comes from other sources such as my friends and family.

 

[urbanboom]

double post.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Ummmm... how many people do you know that lost their jobs and then turned to prostitution in this recession? I understand you're trying to be dramatic, but that doesn't seem really realistic. What I was refering to was the people who are finding that in a era of go-go and excess, money wasn't really their first love. I bet many of them (including myself) are realizing that their joy comes from other sources such as my friends and family.

the media is reporting that quite a few women are resorting to prostitution and/or stripping as a result of the recession. and it doesn't take a statistician to know crime kinda goes up in times of economic hardship.

i'm not trying to be dramatic, i'm just pointing out that the recession isn't a blessing is disguise as some make it out to be just because it brings people closer to god or increases their religiosity. for example, being afflicted by a disease can bring a person closer to god or make them attend church but the means (cancer) doesn't justify the end result (a church goer) and anyone who considers themselves as a beacon of morality certainly shouldn't be glad that some supposed good happened as a result of such a huge cost.

 

[Hydrogen]

Why is just one religious theory out of thousands being taught as an alternative to evolution?

I would not think of religious creation stories as being 'theories,' but simply as statements of a belief. These stories are then taught to subsequent generations as if they are the literal truth. Theories (particularly scientific theories) are more complex; they not only provide reasonable explanations based on observation and verified data, but must offer up predictive possibilities and avenues for further testing.

Moreover, there is no satisfactory rationale for requiring that various religious mythologies be taught in science class. Leave that to courses on comparative religion.

 

[taal]

Just recently I recall reading an article that the pope doesn't oppose evolution! Could have been confused though

I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much to come up with a theory that combined evolution and creationism ... actually it's been done already. For one the arguments regarding the time line it self is based on the fact that days/nights in the bible are not a literal translation to what we consider days/nights today. Moreover, to throw in the creationism step all you have to do is say some interference was thrown in at some point or another ... a bit of salt and pepper Bamb! (As Emerald would say) you have humans!

Seems general enough to apply to any religion of your choosing now (less Scientology of course). Anyway, leave religion out of the class room ...

Regarding Urban ... 's comment about what if science is proven wrong ... well for one it won't happen unless pretty much all we believe in from a science point of view is proven wrong. Even if it did so what! When I was going through HS I recall a few things theories that were changed regarding science later on.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

urbanboom:

I think you are quite right - one "good" thing about the recession is making people re-evaluate their lives and their roles in society. In fact, I would argue that, at least in the US - it has served to moderate the more fundamentalistic aspects of religion and reorient their focus on immediate social problems instead of the culture war.

Prometheus:

What does prostitution has to do with this thread? Beyond that, there is nothing inheritly wrong when people choose to utilize spirituality in the healing process - it's not a binary where the use of such necessarily translate into a visceal disbelief in modern medicine. Certain sects do, but I would be careful not to translate that into any sort of generalization. I mean, equating a Unitarian Universalist and their stance on a variety of topics to say, someone belonging to the LDS is kinda pointless.

taal:

I believe the Catholic Church sees evolution in general as compatiable with divine creation - I think it does make some distinction about creation of the soul, which is considered to be an area of divine providence.

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

(Editor’s note: Conservative MP James Lunney, Alberni-Qualicum, made the following statement in the House of Commons April 2 about Charles Darwin and evolution.)

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a Creator.

Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own.

Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science.

For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible.

Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions.

Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, such as, advanced models of plate tectonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator.

http://www.westcoaster.ca/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=6531

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wonder why he is dragging Darwin into this - if anything, the availability of new evidence (the various fossils of the Homind family, much more advanced knowledge on ecology, geology, genetics, etc) is likely to slant the evidence further in favour of evolution as the mechanism that produced H. sapiens.

Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis

Origins is different from evolution as a mechanism - which has been demonstrated rather throughly, thank you very much. As to origins - the field of cosmology is busy at work on this one.

And on that matter, I am sure Mr. Lunney has no problems with utilizing modern technologies and putting himself under the mercies of "unproven" hypotheses underlying them.

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

It sucks that this issue is invading Canadian politics. It continues to surprise me that, while much of the rest of the world is skewing toward progressivism, Canada seems to be sliding backward toward conservatism.

There's a false equivalency at work with this issue, and lots of others, that drives me crazy. It goes like this: "We need to show people both sides." There seems to be this idea that there are two sides to every issue and that they're both equally grounded in truth.

This is rarely the case. Research, logic, reasoning, etc. can absolutely tilt the scales toward 'one side' and make alternatives irrelevant. It's not a question of bias.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Prometheus:

What does prostitution has to do with this thread? Beyond that, there is nothing inheritly wrong when people choose to utilize spirituality in the healing process - it's not a binary where the use of such necessarily translate into a visceal disbelief in modern medicine. Certain sects do, but I would be careful not to translate that into any sort of generalization. I mean, equating a Unitarian Universalist and their stance on a variety of topics to say, someone belonging to the LDS is kinda pointless.

the conversation evolved from a comment urbandreamer made and then continued to evolve in response to comments urbanboom made about my response to urbandreamer's comments.

sorry about that.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Graphic Matt:

Well, by all means show both sides - and then submit "creation science" to the same rigour required by the scientific method. See which one holds up better?

AoD

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

in the order of importance, the theory is the most important. the fact is the least. the fact is just a piece of data. theories are made up of facts, laws, etc.

ronald regan was almost right when he said: "facts are useless things". a fact is just a observation, like saying "the sky looks blue" big deal. it doesn't explain anything. that's where the theory comes in. a theory can never be a fact and it doesn't have to be. gravitational theory is not a fact and will never be a fact. it can only contain of facts, etc. usually when people say a theory is a fact, they really mean to say the theory is true.


also, you don't have to observe something happen or be able to repeat something that happened for it to be a "fact" or true. if you stumble upon a mountain climber who is dead at the bottom of the mountain with a snapped rope connected to him, the other end of the rope connected to the wall of the mountain and serious impact trauma on the man's body, you don't need to observe the fall or reproduce it to know what happened. you might get some facts wrong like the exact distance of the fall, etc. but you know it was a fall.

(Editor’s note: Conservative MP James Lunney, Alberni-Qualicum, made the following statement in the House of Commons April 2 about Charles Darwin and evolution.)

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a Creator.

Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own.

Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science.

For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible.

Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions.

Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, such as, advanced models of plate tectonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator.

http://www.westcoaster.ca/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=6531

 

[Hydrogen]

Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, such as, advanced models of plate tectonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator.

Had Lunney ever bothered to read On the Origin of Species he would have discovered that Darwin offered up a considerable body of evidence to support his claims, plus an explanatory model for how species come into being. Darwin also provides an artificial analog (the breeding of plants an animals) to further back up his ideas. Darwin never claimed to have anything to say about how life began. What he provided was an qualitative theoretical explanation of how species evolve.

What has followed since 1859 is the accumulation of a tremendous amount of evidence that supports Darwin's general claims. This evidence is typically ignored, misunderstood or willfully misinterpreted by creationists.

Oddly enough, Lunney speaks of plate tectonics without understanding the role this geological feature of the earth plays in isolating groups of a species from one and other and over time creating environments that are central to evolution by natural selection.