Creationism in schools

We can really address this whole matter simply. Those that advocate teaching "creationims" or "intelligent design" in a classroom lack even the fundamental knowledge of what science is.

Any arguments they present are based upon ignorance and are generally ignored by any individual with the ability to think.

If God exists and gave man brains then why do are many believers incapable of thinking?

 

You ought to look up a guy named Charles Sanders Peirce. He said we have 4 methods for fixing belief (choosing what to believe). And the method of tenacity is believing what you want to believe and saying (*)(*)(*)(*) any evidence that goes against it you will NEVER change even if the sky was falling. That's what a lot of religious people (not ALL) remind me of. But it applies equally well to politics also.

 

You use this word "fact", but I do not think you know what it means.

Not really, no. At least, not in full, and not to the same degree of accuracy I did.

A very carefully selected one, I'm sure. I, on the other hand, gave the exact scientific method.

What?

English, please?

Uhh.

I honestly have no idea what this question is asking.

I understand the word - I just don't understand the sentence it's in.

Alrighty. Lets do this at is most simple level. There are countless other ways this has been done, of course - as is the nature of a repeating process.

1. Define a question
- Why are species different?

2. Gather information and resources (observe)
- The Beagle's voyage to the galapagos islands, and the data collected there.

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
- That natural selection will eventually result in evolving characteristics.

4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
- Breeding experiments.

5. Analyze the data
- Obviously. Found that artificial selection can evolve a species.

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- The theory has changed in subtle ways since it was created, owing to genetics, the discovery of DNA and mutation.

7. Publish results
- Obviously.

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
- Among others, fruit fly experimentation.

You want me to show how creationism hasn't followed the scientific method? They haven't done any testing to support their hypothesis. Ever.

1. Define a question
- Why are species different?

2. Gather information and resources (observe)
- Uhh, species are different.

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
- God did it.

4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
- Not done. It can't be done, because their hypothesis is non-falsifiable. It is fundamentally impossible to test.

5. Analyze the data
- Not done, although they do sometimes look at the data of other experiments.

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Not done. They sometimes look at other data and suggest a new hypothesis of "god did it", but that hardly counts.

7. Publish results
- Not done in any reputable print, to my knowledge.

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
- Not done.

 

Depends on the accreditation agency. Accreditation agencies are not government functions, but rather are private ones. There are Accreditation agencies specifically for Christian schools. They would have no problem accrediting a creationist school.

 

Not in any state I have lived/worked in (Georgia, Alabama, and Florida). Private schools can pretty much teach what they want to teach.

 

Please show the source for exactly 4.55 billion years old. I've never seen that exact a figure bandied about.

 

4.54 billion years old +/- 1% margin of error.

 

In my view that is different than saying 4.55 bya.

 

It is, but what is the point of nitpicking?

 

Just want to point out that none of these have anything to do with the age of the Earth, and the 2nd and 3rd don't make any sense at all. Density and temperature have no relation to the radius of an object.

 

You are not interested in a discussion with anyone, there is no point in further response.

 

Quoting myself...

I suppose temperature could possibly affect radius (expansion), depending on certain factors, but I suspect this isn't quite what you meant.

 

It may be funny but you must agree this is the fact. You must agree that all atheists who have posted here hear the same "Bible this, Bible that, Bible blah blah blah..." It is not difficult to check and see that the fact is it is only you who has mentioned the Bible. Thus you must agree that that it is the estublished fact that atheists, all with no exclusion, are delusional, they all have mental disabilities. Do you agree with this obvious to any sane person fact, or I have to repeat it again and point that nobody, but you have typed the Bible word?

 

Here we have another conformation of the fact that atheists are void of any reason. It does not matter what is the screen name they all post the same argument :
“You don’t know what is______________” fill the blank.
“You don’t know what is
……….fact,
…………evolution,
…………quantum mechanics,
………….black,
………….white,
………….string theory,
…………..left,
………….right…
………….etc.”
End of argument.

Ladies and Gent-s, you know well, that I can copy paste this kindergarten “argument’ to demonstrate that it does not belong to one atheist, but it is a signature of any atheist. It does matter if it is Dawkins, or another poster on the PF , all atheists demonstrate the same mentality of a 5 years old kid.

Do we expect that further arguments are going to be any different? Let’s take a look at the next one:

Here, Ladies and Gent another proof of the fact that atheists cannot answer a simple question, but always act like a kindergarten kid who covers his eyes with his palms and says, - “Nobody sees me”, - like you ladies and gents are not adults and cannot see the primitive attempt to dodge, spin and hide.

I count on your, ladies and Gent-s sense of humor. “No. Yes, but not full. Yes, but not in a degree.”

So, in your own link there are more accurate and less accurate statements about the same thing and only you can know which one is which according to criteria known only by you? Do you need any further proof that atheists are simply sick? Would you please post a link where all statements are equally accurate?


Do we expect that further arguments are going to be any different? Let’s take a look at the next one:

So, in your own link there are very carefully selected descriptions of the scientific method on one hand and exact ones on other hand; and you only can know which one is which according to criteria known only by you? Do you need any further proof that atheists are simply sick? Would you please post a link where all statements are equally exact?

Do we expect that further arguments are going to be any different? Let’s take a look at the next one:


- if I am in the mood and have time I will continue to entertain you, Ladies and Gents, step by step, even if I am sure you all see the misery of evolutionists.

 

No, I didn’t mean that.

Basic laws of gravity and mechanics (centrifugal forces) tell that soon the earth will not be what it is and it was not what it is a little while ago.

Basic laws of thermodynamics tell that soon the earth will not be what it is and it was not what it is a little while ago.

These were 2 perspectives I mentioned but not 1 you saw. And from these 2 perspectives the age should be considered.

In general the earth started (if it did) as a molten highly radioactive mass with spin, centrifugal moment and orbit very different from the one observed today.

The heat influx and exchange for sure were also different.

These are only 2 scales and parameters in which the age may be guessed.

The mechanics and thermodynamics of the earth getting ready to accept life are not known to geologists and evolutionists.

(Several mechanisms have been proposed for the Moon's formation 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago, but none of them hold any water. When Kelvin totally destryed the idea of static eath-sun system, evolutionists created another series of miracles in which you have been believing, even if they are no more than miracles from the POW of mechanics and T-cs. Like “ in the beginning an object of a size of Mars broke all orders of mechanics, apperead from nowhere and in defiance of any laws of gravity collided with the earth splitting the moon out of it”. If you go through the history of the earth in the bible of evolutionists you go through a history of miracles scientifically called catastrophes. You are lucky because you’re totally void of any understanding of mechanics and t-cs thus you accept them by faith only, however ridicliuos they are and however ridiculios is the concept of miracles in happenings observed in movements of material bodies.

There is a lot to it, but it is way over the heads of evolutionists.

The fact that evolutionists are void of any understanding of the observed material world may be clearly seen from their replies. One does not have to be a scientist or be a believer in X, Y or Z, but all one need is basic decency, honesty and integrity to see for sure that evolutionists are totally void of the latter, that they have no firm grounds to stand on, no decency, no moral, no intergity.

 

I find it quite humorous and ironic that you continuously rally against science as being unreliable and worthless, yet here you are attempting to use it to explain your argument.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

I read it as you accepting my arguments as valid.

You are mistaken, please pay attention, I do not use science to prove that science is garbage; I use anti-science which is based on totally different approach and methodology.

 

Hehehe, creationist apologetics in a nutshell

 

Interesting... I have never equated such, but I do see a trend...

 

You said it was "an established fact that atheists do NEVER reply to Qs/statements". Yeah, Im pretty sure you dont know what a fact is.

Oh, and cherry picking quotes isn't going to change the scientific method.

I'm done with you until you actually show how creationism is science.

 

If Creationism is going to be taught in public school it needs to be a elective only class. Making Creationism manditory violates the religious rights of non-Christians.

And it has to have a volenteer teacher who does not work for the school since the law forbids teachers from getting involved in religious discussions with students.

 

The laws do not prohibit teachers from addressing religious beliefs in a philosophy class which is the appropriate place for discussions on creationism. Of course in such a class the fallacies of creationism would also have to be addressed because it is contradicted by emperical evidence.

How many proponents of "creationism" would really like it addressed in an objective manner? None! It is pure religious BS and has been exposed as such by the scientific community. Even in philosophy a proposition which is contradicted by emperical evidence is discarded as being an invalid philosophy.

 

Creationism is not philosophy.......Telling someone that you think god created everything does not tell them anything about your philosophy.

In a philosophy class, the only aspect of the bible that truly fits are the teachings of christ. His teachings of love being most important and how you should always put others before yourself were a philosophy.


To tell the truth, most religious classes in public schools are shams, just to let teachers force their views on the students. I took a biblical literature class in high school which is supposed to be about the effects the bible has on literature. We were supposed to study stuff like Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost, and read books like Ben Hur, but instead, the teacher simply had us read the bible and take tests on it.

 

Any foundation for "creationism" must be based upon a philosophy or it becomes nothing more than an uninformed opinion not worthy of any discussion. The belief in god is a philosophy regardless of which religion is being addressed. Philosophies are judged based upon the merits of their arguments and are certainly invalidated when they the contradict known facts.

Of course I cannot comment on anecdotal experiences that could simply reflect poor quality teaching. I've personally taken excellent philosophy classes in college and much depends upon the competency of the teacher.

The key is that all philosophies should be addressed in school in an unbiased manner. Many Christians would oppose the Bible being addressed in an unbiased manner because it would reveal many flaws in their beliefs. They would also be opposed to creationism being presented in an unbiased manner because the flaws inherent in creationism would be addressed.

 

Religion and philosophy are not the same thing........I can start a religion that worships michael Jackson's rubber nose, but there does not have to be any philosphy about it. The belief in intelligent design does not have to have any specific philosophy. The philosphy of christ is seperate and does not need any religion to remaine a valid philosophy.



To put it simply, creationism begins when god creates the heavens and the earth and ends when he rests..... It deals only with the creation of the universe and not how to live your lives....So it is not a pilosophy.