Creationism

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Can we start teaching Voodoo, Hinduism and Scientology in classrooms too?

Slippery slope.

why not? I was taught hinduism in high school > >

you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the problem with schools right now is that students are being taught TOO much and their knowledge of the world around them TOO deep.

just because a subject is brought up in a class room doesn't mean it's endorsed or encouraged.

You have such an idealistic view of schools. Already, parents complain when "activist" teachers endorse and encourage their views on politics, themes in literature, etc.

What do you think would happen when teachers lecture on religious faith?, something which is very near and dear to their heart, much more so than some literary theme or historical event. The real world level of endorsement would be inappropriate, no matter what the school board rules say.

Exactly; the same people who are proponents of creationism would have a fit if their children told them they were taught the basics about Islam in high school.

I'm being completely un-P.C. here and telling you straight out, things like that wouldn't fly in certain red states.

It all depends on the context. Surely you can understand that. I would have no problem with my child being taught the history of Islam from a neutral perspective. I would, however, have a problem with Islam Week, complete with mock prayer to Mecca and hajib.

Here

Education should be taught from a neutral standpoint. One of the best teachers I ever had was as hard-core a Democrat as they came, but he laid out the facts in a neutral fashion and let us reach our own conclusions. The only time we ever found out his personal beliefs was when we nagged it out of him.

Science education should be neutral about scientific topics, but it shouldn't take a neutral view to something that is rigorously unscientific.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Don't just worry about a creationist VP candidate; we narrowly escaped a creationist presidential candidate (remember the infamous evolution "show of hands"?)? Also, don't forget also-ran Mike Huckabee (still a right-wing crowd favorite) pushing for an American theocracy: ?I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it?s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that?s what we need to do ? is to amend the Constitution so it?s in God?s standards rather than try to change God?s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.?


edit: Of course, if we are to teach creationism, I want equal time for Turtleism's creation story:

In the beginning, there was a Turtle
And the Turtle lay down upon his Neighbor, which was his Mother
And She bore Him, in pain, a Tree
Which grew all day, and then fell over
And in the pond beneath the Tree there was a Great Fish...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Don't just worry about a creationist VP candidate; we narrowly escaped a creationist presidential candidate (remember the infamous evolution "show of hands"?)? Also, don't forget also-ran Mike Huckabee (still a right-wing crowd favorite) pushing for an American theocracy: ?I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it?s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that?s what we need to do ? is to amend the Constitution so it?s in God?s standards rather than try to change God?s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.?


edit: Of course, if we are to teach creationism, I want equal time for Turtleism's creation story:

In the beginning, there was a Turtle
And the Turtle lay down upon his Neighbor, which was his Mother
And She bore Him, in pain, a Tree
Which grew all day, and then fell over
And in the pond beneath the Tree there was a Great Fish...

this fish... did it have a secret wish?

a wish to be... a big cactus? perhaps -- with a pink flower on it?

 

[jackschmittusa]

People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

All I have to say on the subject is best summed up by two songs by gangsta rappa' M.C. Hawking (taken from A Brief History of Rhyme). These funny songs are definitely worth watching if you've never seen them:

F*** the Creationists

What We Need More of Is Science

"If them superstitious mother******* want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes."

 

[1prophet]

If the Pope can't do something about this in his country what are you all afraid of.

Crucified frog

Museum defies pope over crucified frog
Sculpture portraying amphibian with beer mug is blasphemous, pontiff says
MSNBC News Services
updated 2:26 p.m. ET, Thurs., Aug. 28, 2008
ROME - An art museum in northern Italy said Thursday it will continue displaying a sculpture portraying a green frog nailed to a cross that has angered Pope Benedict XVI and local officials.

The board of the foundation of the Museion in the city of Bolzano voted to keep the work by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger, the museum said in a statement.

Earlier in August the pope had written a letter to Franz Pahl, the president of the Trentino-Alto Adige region that includes Bolzano, denouncing the sculpture.

It "has offended the religious feelings of many people who consider the cross a symbol of God's love and of our redemption," Pahl quoted the pope as writing in the letter.

Pahl himself has long opposed the display of "Zuerst die Fuesse" ("First the Feet" in German), even staging a hunger strike this summer and saying he would not seek re-election unless it was removed.

The museum then moved the statue out of its foyer and into a less trafficked area on the third floor.

In a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Pahl said he was outraged by the museum's decision to keep the work, which he claims "pokes fun at the Catholic population and offends religion and the pope."

The 1990 wooden sculpture shows the crucified frog nailed through the feet and hands like Jesus Christ. The frog, eyes popping and tongue sticking out, wears a loincloth and holds a mug of beer and an egg in its hands.

'A tragicomic sense'
The museum said the 3-foot-tall sculpture has nothing to do with religion, but is an ironic self-portrait of the artist and an expression of his angst.

"With humor and a tragicomic sense, which belongs to art since the times of Greek tragedy, Kippenberger ... faces his condition of suffering, which he expresses in many works, also, for example, in a video in which he crucifies himself," the museum said in a statement.

Art experts defend the work.

"Art must always be free and the artist should not have any restrictions on freedom of expression," Claudio Strinati, a superintendent for Rome's state museums, told an Italian newspaper on Thursday.

Born in Dortmund, Kippenberger moved from painting and sculpture to work in all mediums, often combining elements of Neo-expressionism, Pop and Dadaism. His art has been displayed across the world, including Zurich, Paris, Jerusalem, London and New York.

He died in 1997, aged 43.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Can we start teaching Voodoo, Hinduism and Scientology in classrooms too?

Slippery slope.

why not? I was taught about Hinduism in high school > > (Islam and Confucianism too)

you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the problem with schools right now is that students are being taught TOO much and their knowledge of the world around them TOO deep.

just because a subject is brought up in a class room doesn't mean it's endorsed or encouraged.

did they talk about Hinduism and Confucianism in science class?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

did he say that?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

did he say that?

No. That's why I asked.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

did he say that?

No. That's why I asked.

what does it have to do with the topic? why the derail? This thread is about creatioism, not peoples opinions on political liberty, if you want to discuss that, make a thread or pm him.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


All I have to say on the subject is best summed up by two songs by gangsta rappa' M.C. Hawking (taken from A Brief History of Rhyme). These funny songs are definitely worth watching if you've never seen them:

F*** the Creationists

What We Need More of Is Science

"If them superstitious mother******* want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes."

:thumbsup: those were great!

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481
no, not really.

I was taught ID in high school alongside evolution. it wasn't indoctrination, more of a discussion about what some people believed and the science/religion both behind and in conflict with it.

That's theproblem. ID came from a religious background. Most science is based on curiosity, not faith. Since it is based on faith, you are inclined to believe it even though it can be proven false. Science base theories, on the other hand, tell you to disregard the theory as soon as any part proves false.

If you really think ID cames from religious circles, then you don't know what it is. It sounds like you are confusing it with creationism.

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" Kitzmiller vs Dover, Judge Jones, Christian, Republican, Bush appointee.

Originally posted by: loki8481
why not? I was taught about Hinduism in high school > > (Islam and Confucianism too)

you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the problem with schools right now is that students are being taught TOO much and their knowledge of the world around them TOO deep.

just because a subject is brought up in a class room doesn't mean it's endorsed or encouraged.

Then teach it in comparative theology, NOT science class.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

did he say that?

No. That's why I asked.

what does it have to do with the topic? why the derail? This thread is about creatioism, not peoples opinions on political liberty, if you want to discuss that, make a thread or pm him.

True perhaps.

I just find it ironic that so many would want to keep ancient, failed religious beliefs out of government, yet turn around and vote for those who hold ancient, failed, political beliefs.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

did he say that?

No. That's why I asked.

what does it have to do with the topic? why the derail? This thread is about creatioism, not peoples opinions on political liberty, if you want to discuss that, make a thread or pm him.

True perhaps.

I just find it ironic that so many would want to keep ancient, failed religious beliefs out of government, yet turn around and vote for those who hold ancient, failed, political beliefs.

Like "Trickle-down economics" and "Starve the beast"?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People that claim young Earth, creationism, and such assorted crap, are unfit for office in my opinion. Could never vote for one of them.

But would you vote for someone who thinks its ok for the government to trample on your rights and liberties?

did he say that?

No. That's why I asked.

what does it have to do with the topic? why the derail? This thread is about creatioism, not peoples opinions on political liberty, if you want to discuss that, make a thread or pm him.

True perhaps.

I just find it ironic that so many would want to keep ancient, failed religious beliefs out of government, yet turn around and vote for those who hold ancient, failed, political beliefs.

Like "Trickle-down economics" and "Starve the beast"?

*d-d-d-d-DERAIL*

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Then teach it in comparative theology, NOT science class.

Exactomundo.

<--Paleontologist and theistic evolutionist.

 

[Vic]

Science belongs in the science classroom.

Religion belongs in church and home.

Kindly keep YOUR religion out of OUR children's science classrooms.

Thank you.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TechAZ
No. And I'm not religious. Then again, I also don't mock and vilify other people's most personal spiritual beliefs.

I had no idea you were such an accepting person.

For the record, you don't have to be religious to be creationist. Just incredibly ignorant. But I refuse to mock and vilify the most personal stupidity of others.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: XMan
Education should be taught from a neutral standpoint. One of the best teachers I ever had was as hard-core a Democrat as they came, but he laid out the facts in a neutral fashion and let us reach our own conclusions. The only time we ever found out his personal beliefs was when we nagged it out of him.

It depends what you mean by "neutral." Neutrality is fine when there's no consensus on a subject. But being neutral just for the sake of "giving all voices a chance" is absurd. Not all voices deserve a chance.

I've used this example several times before, but imagine how a "neutral" approach to the holocaust would play out. The class would present evidence for and evidence against whether the holocaust ever actually occurred, but would take no official stand on the subject.

And imagine a "neutral" class on slavery. A neutral class - during sex ed - on having lots of sex partners and out-of-wedlock pregnancies. A neutral class on drug use. A neutral class on terrorism.

Creationism will have a valid claim for equal time in the science classroom alongside Evolution when it can provide a comparable body of supporting scientific data. Absent such evidence, creationism is just a statement of belief, and is no more "science" than the claim that God exists is science.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Vic
Science belongs in the science classroom.

Religion belongs in church and home.

Kindly keep YOUR religion out of OUR children's science classrooms.

Thank you.

Does the US not have religious education in schools?
In the UK we had to learn about the major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism) as part of our education.
AFAIK from age 5 to 14 or so it's a requirement to have religious education in UK schools.
Not any kind of indoctrination (although some faith based schools do lean heavily on specific faiths and Christianity is usually a focus because it's the predominant religion in the country), but no one is taught to believe a specific faith.

Religion should be kept out of science classrooms, but religious education should have a place in schools to help children learn about different religions and their ideas.

 

[Throckmorton]

We do teach about religions in world history classes etc. But what these people want to do is teach religion AS SCIENCE. That's why we have a problem with a creationist who believes in teaching creationism.

To me it's also a clear indicator that she's not intelligent enough to be the president. Look what we got from George Bush.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
We do teach about religions in world history classes etc. But what these people want to do is teach religion AS SCIENCE. That's why we have a problem with a creationist who believes in teaching creationism.

To me it's also a clear indicator that she's not intelligent enough to be the president. Look what we got from George Bush.

So...what are you saying...people who believe in God are unfit to be President?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
We do teach about religions in world history classes etc. But what these people want to do is teach religion AS SCIENCE. That's why we have a problem with a creationist who believes in teaching creationism.

To me it's also a clear indicator that she's not intelligent enough to be the president. Look what we got from George Bush.

So...what are you saying...people who believe in God are unfit to be President?

Of course. That's unequivocal.

Being an agnostic is one thing, but if you blindly believe that there is a god then you are too stupid to be president.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
We do teach about religions in world history classes etc. But what these people want to do is teach religion AS SCIENCE. That's why we have a problem with a creationist who believes in teaching creationism.

To me it's also a clear indicator that she's not intelligent enough to be the president. Look what we got from George Bush.

So...what are you saying...people who believe in God are unfit to be President?

Of course. That's unequivocal.

Being an agnostic is one thing, but if you blindly believe that there is a god then you are too stupid to be president.

I guess you aren't voting for Obama then?