Creation vs. Evolution

[Candy]

Teaching, learning, and researching is about pushing the limits of our knowledge. Not teaching a sound and so far not disproven theory because some people take offense for religious reasons? Come on. The Dark Age is over.

The XXX domain extension has been suspended by religious USA. In the Netherlands a couple went to the doctor because they couldn't get children. Problem in case, they didn't have sex since that was for animals only, according to their religion. As far as I'm concerned, living in the dark age is a matter of choice nowadays, it's not impossible.

[Solar]

I can do my part to keep it impossible where I live and raise my children.

[distantvoices]

I wonder how that religion has survived? or is it a new one? It's surely bound to extinction it it weren't for in-vitro-fertilization.

Blah. what religion is that? Don't want to have fun in the haystacks (aye, it peeks and itches) but the thick wombs of the women they want? Double blah. I suppose they better get a grip & a lesson by Grift&Bodger.

[Solar]

While we're fading this into the funnies, my wife's grandmother only had sex with her husband when she was fertile. Lucky thing she thought she was fertile when she had her period, or she would have had lots more than the two children she had. And also lucky that nature had its way anyways, or I wouldn't have that wonderful wife I'm married to.

I think it's a good example for how mixing scientific and religious teachings can screw up your life.

[Crazed123]

So it really says we SHOULD NOT teach any theories of the Origin of Life, the Universe and Everything. NONE OF THEM.

Then I disagree even more violently than to teaching Creationism alongside evolution theory.

Teaching, learning, and researching is about pushing the limits of our knowledge. Not teaching a sound and so far not disproven theory because some people take offense for religious reasons? Come on. The Dark Age is over.

So nowadays we must teach something in compulsory public schools in order for it to be available knowledge? Come on, I DARE you to say that you needed a compulsory class to learn to use the net. People are perfectly capable of going to libraries, where they can find lots and lots of books on whatever crackpot religious theories or extremely credible scientific theories they want.

Now if you want to talk about schools, then there is a condition under which I think it's perfectly OK to teach Origin Theories: make the class or school OPTIONAL. What I object to is cramming one view of where we all came from down everyone's throat at school. It could be any view, I generally object to things being crammed down people's throats. It doesn't matter who takes offense at what. What matters is that you're forcing someone to believe in a particular worldview. Yes, there ARE stupid people out there who will except whatever teachings they're given, and they aren't as rare as we would like to think. And yes, you're forcing them to believe it (on some level) when you mark them down for their answer on the exam that the Universe in fact came from the Great Green Arkleseizure rather than random quantum **** begetting a random quantum Big Bang that Random Quantumly created everything.

And yes, I'm allowed to make fun of quantum randomness, for there is now an alternate theory that doesn't involve God. http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml Go and read it. I am unfortunately unable to understand the mathematics, but I think I can grok that it says that atomic-level calculations can be handled in a classical and deterministic way.

In conclusion, make damned evolution units optional. Along with Big Bang units. Both of these rely on a Postulate of Universality that cannot be proven. They can go to hell, and I can go and study damned evolution in peace.

The scientist calls the prophet mad, and the prophet says the scientist is blind to G-d. Both are simply relying on different sets of data to determine truth, and I really don't see any reason that everybody should be forced to line up and listen to either of them rather than considering things for themselves and coming to a decision. Even relatively stupid people (for it's true that "suggestible" stupid isn't the same as "can't add one and one" stupid) can do this if nobody interferes.

[Candy]

Then I disagree even more violently than to teaching Creationism alongside evolution theory.

Teaching, learning, and researching is about pushing the limits of our knowledge. Not teaching a sound and so far not disproven theory because some people take offense for religious reasons? Come on. The Dark Age is over.

So nowadays we must teach something in compulsory public schools in order for it to be available knowledge? Come on, I DARE you to say that you needed a compulsory class to learn to use the net. People are perfectly capable of going to libraries, where they can find lots and lots of books on whatever crackpot religious theories or extremely credible scientific theories they want.

Now if you want to talk about schools, then there is a condition under which I think it's perfectly OK to teach Origin Theories: make the class or school OPTIONAL. What I object to is cramming one view of where we all came from down everyone's throat at school. It could be any view, I generally object to things being crammed down people's throats. It doesn't matter who takes offense at what. What matters is that you're forcing someone to believe in a particular worldview. Yes, there ARE stupid people out there who will except whatever teachings they're given, and they aren't as rare as we would like to think. And yes, you're forcing them to believe it (on some level) when you mark them down for their answer on the exam that the Universe in fact came from the Great Green Arkleseizure rather than random quantum **** begetting a random quantum Big Bang that Random Quantumly created everything.

And yes, I'm allowed to make fun of quantum randomness, for there is now an alternate theory that doesn't involve God. http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml Go and read it. I am unfortunately unable to understand the mathematics, but I think I can grok that it says that atomic-level calculations can be handled in a classical and deterministic way.

In conclusion, make damned evolution units optional. Along with Big Bang units. Both of these rely on a Postulate of Universality that cannot be proven. They can go to hell, and I can go and study damned evolution in peace.

The scientist calls the prophet mad, and the prophet says the scientist is blind to G-d. Both are simply relying on different sets of data to determine truth, and I really don't see any reason that everybody should be forced to line up and listen to either of them rather than considering things for themselves and coming to a decision. Even relatively stupid people (for it's true that "suggestible" stupid isn't the same as "can't add one and one" stupid) can do this if nobody interferes.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

You must tell people about these things. You cannot scrap them entirely.

Second point, teaching people about evolution is a part of biology. Teaching people about creationism is a part of religion class. Teaching people about the big bang etc. is a part of astronomy, which iirc isn't taught at schools. They don't mix in any way. Don't tell people about one while pretending to be talking about the only one.

Whichever you teach depends on the class you give, but in a scientific educative place (say, a school) it's best to teach the scientific method instead, which is the big bang theory. You CAN NOT put it down because it is not completely certain, since your own theories are just as certain. They could be true, they could be not true. Teaching the old stuff is just halting and slowing progress of new theories, which will slow mankind even further.

In short, given a new theory that has a likelyness to be proven and that is younger than the current unproven theory, give it a decent chance.

[Solar]

Lost a LOOOONG post. So I'll try to boil it down to one paragraph ere I lose yet more time to this BS.

The Pope accepted evolution theory to be "not in contradiction" with belief in god. And about everybody else but the Creationists is OK with teaching the one thing in Biology and the other in Religion, and have the kids figure it out. That leaves the Creationists between a wall and a hard place, because there are a couple of not-too-nice words for people who want to forbid teachings of other points of views.

End of discussion for me. If we should ever meet in, say, a parent-teacher conference, and you put forth the POV you expressed in this thread, expect me to move everything in my power to oppose you.

[distantvoices]

I'd break a hefty argument off with a teacher trying an attempt on preventing my child to learn interresting stuff. Knowledge is force. Especially when it comes down to exchanging arguments among each other.

See it as this: We don't need to know all this to live, eh? (attention, attention, that's been sarcasm, just to make sure) but it enrichens our way to think, to talk. It makes world a place full of more understanding and more light instead of all those dark omens and ghosts of former times who used to frighten the crap out of poor lads who didn't know that whisp over there just been the wind.

regarding the long post of poor solar : know what I'm doing in such cases? ctrl-c ere clicking "send" *chuckle*. The intermediate storage will happily reproduce the post upon failure. Be assured of my sympathy - and don't loose faith.

[Candy]

regarding the long post of poor solar : know what I'm doing in such cases? ctrl-c ere clicking "send" *chuckle*. The intermediate storage will happily reproduce the post upon failure. Be assured of my sympathy - and don't loose faith.

My solution was to use Firefox. Since I can't install firefox where I'm at work right now, I'm using it over an X forwarding SSH session to my own computer... over the internet...

for all other goals, use a backup. I lost one trying to use IE already as well (a testing request for my new boot loader that does 64-bit mode) so I'll repost that when I have the time to retype it.

[Solar]

Since I can't install firefox where I'm at work right now, I'm using it over an X forwarding SSH session to my own computer... over the internet...

1) Wouldn't work due to firewall employed;
2) would get me fired within the day.

I'm pushing the limit with my posts here anyway.

[distantvoices]

've forgotten to put ctrl-A before ctrl-C. damnit should take the head out of the clouds when posting stuff. *fg*

@Solar: It's the same here too. Firewall. and if they discovered such an attempt as importing an x session, they'd sack me in an instant.

[Crazed123]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

You must tell people about these things. You cannot scrap them entirely.

Second point, teaching people about evolution is a part of biology. Teaching people about creationism is a part of religion class. Teaching people about the big bang etc. is a part of astronomy, which iirc isn't taught at schools. They don't mix in any way. Don't tell people about one while pretending to be talking about the only one.

Whichever you teach depends on the class you give, but in a scientific educative place (say, a school) it's best to teach the scientific method instead, which is the big bang theory. You CAN NOT put it down because it is not completely certain, since your own theories are just as certain. They could be true, they could be not true. Teaching the old stuff is just halting and slowing progress of new theories, which will slow mankind even further.

In short, given a new theory that has a likelyness to be proven and that is younger than the current unproven theory, give it a decent chance.

This is in fact, one of the most clear-sighted posts in this topic. I'm going to attempt to explain why I've grouped Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

What I object to is the teaching in schools of the Scientific Origin Theory of the Universe. It is entirely possible to teach evolution without teaching that, and in fact it's a VERY GOOD idea to teach evolution, JUST AS LONG as you don't teach that it and random stardust and quantum physics are the origins of everything we see around us in the universe. In other words, keep science where it can be tested. After all, there were supposedly thousands of witnesses to Sinai, but it is in the past and so most atheists for some reason feel comfortable saying that the written record of events witnessed by thousands is blatantly false. They do this solely on the basis that this record is old and was written before we had peer-reviewed journals. Thus, please allow me the courtesy of saying that if you don't want to teach Biblical History in schools because it may not be true, you also don't teach Science's History of the Universe because it applies to a time when there was nobody to test it.

This whole thing is sounding like good satire material. Idea... bubbling...

[distantvoices]

...After all, there were supposedly thousands of witnesses to Sinai, but it is in the past and so most atheists for some reason feel comfortable saying that the written record of events witnessed by thousands is blatantly false. They do this solely on the basis that this record is old and was written before we had peer-reviewed journals. ...

No one says that what stands on olden testament is *false*.

Take humans into consideration, and how oral information is passed further. It *is* meddled with in the course of passing. Call it "making an elephant out of a midge", adding magic and mystery in the course to attract the listeners and there you are. Yo, and who tells, that thousands witnessed what has happened at sinai? Who tells that each of these thousands reports exactly the same - and not what he *wants* to have seen/witnessed?

In this context it is quite possible to see the event of Moses and Him (You jewish folks don't speak his name, do you?) 'avataring (my invention in lack of proper word)' in the burning bush as this: Moses walks around with quite a load of despair in his heart and out of a sudden, a spark *zack* inflammates said bush. Ha, what would you do in this situation if your belief in supernatural forces is burned deeply in your mind?

Honestly, a little bit of catching up in applied psychology is asked for ere throwing around *this* argument.

And true is, this is not really the place to discuss the bible *gg*. Which, by the way I consider to be completely misinterpreted by most christian churches - especially the catholic ones.

Stay safe

[Solar]

What I object to is the teaching in schools of the Scientific Origin Theory of the Universe. It is entirely possible to teach evolution without teaching that, and in fact it's a VERY GOOD idea to teach evolution, JUST AS LONG as you don't teach that it and random stardust and quantum physics are the origins of everything we see around us in the universe.

Again you're missing the point about scientific theories. Random stardust and quantum physics (huh?) could have been the origins of everything we see. Nothing has yet been found to falsify it, and every year scientists find new proof that it indeed could have been so. It is what is currently believed to be the most plausible explanation, it is what people get payed for to research, so it should be expected that a graduate knows about this stuff.

In other words, keep science where it can be tested.

What would you say if I said "keep religion where it can be tested"? You'd be in quite a pinch - when was the last proof be found for your god of choice, and what about the "proof" that others have found for their gods of choice?

After all, there were supposedly thousands of witnesses to Sinai, but it is in the past and so most atheists for some reason feel comfortable saying that the written record of events witnessed by thousands is blatantly false.

There have been thousands of witnesses to acts of witchcraft, for which people were burned at the stake, and that was just a fraction of the time into the past. There have been thousands of witnesses of UFO landings. Your point?

They do this solely on the basis that this record is old and was written before we had peer-reviewed journals.

Moses, for example, is only mentioned in the Bible. No other writings tell about him. No writings of the Egypt tell about the exodus of a whole people of slaves, or the loss of an army in the red sea.

Thus, please allow me the courtesy of saying that if you don't want to teach Biblical History in schools because it may not be true...

Please show me where anyone has said this, in this thread. Sheesh. All we're saying is that the Bible should be taught in Religion and scientific theories in Science class.

The only one trying to ban a subject from class is you.

Damn.

If I hate one thing, it's ignoring other people's words in a discussion. Learning resistance. AAAAAAAAHHHH!

[distantvoices]

*reaches solar a cooling pack*