how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

[edthecynic]

I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists. And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.

But neither should any science teacher be teaching that Creationism or Intelligent Design are invalid as there is no scientific theory or basis for that either.

A perfect example of why a Creationist should not teach science! Obviously your Creationist teachers never taught you the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think anyone should be irked about creationism or ID, per se. Anger by a person at such simply reveals some unseen and unresolved inner distress about the subject. I do think it should be taught in HS in a humanities or comparative religions or mythology class. However, the minority of the school board wants it in the biology classroom while the Superintendent and a majority of the school board say "no". Been this way for over twenty years.

 

[Woyzeck]

Are they teaching their own beliefs instead of science in science class?

If so, I don't want them teaching my kids fucking retarded bullshit.

 

[edthecynic]

Well I explained it in some detail. If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.

Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.

Point of order: Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.

And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.

And what is somebody who consistently puts words into the 'mouths' of other members--words that have no relationship whatsoever to the context of the message posted?

Or if that is not what you were doing, what is somebody who can't debate the topic so includes ridiculous non sequitur?

And how exactly did I put words in your mouth?

You falsely claim that Creationism cannot be scientifically falsified even though it violates the FLoT. Based on your false claim you condemn as closed minded and unfit to teach anything any science teacher who dares point out that Creationism violates the FLoT.

It appears you have hypocritically closed your mind to the FLoT!!!

 

[geauxtohell]

Really?

Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".

LOL what a bafoon you are.

Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.

We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.

In biology, "theory" means "highly supported by data and evidence" and is at the top of the pyramid of biological thought. Strictly speaking, there are laws in math and physics, but there aren't "laws" in biology.

The people think that "theory" means a hunch are either uninformed or trying to muddy the waters.

The larger issue can be debated and discussed without trying to "win" on a silly semantics game. For the field of biology as a whole, evolution is accepted as the best explanation for the origins of species and is the most strongly supported notion in biology.

 

[geauxtohell]

Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.

Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?

Math doesn't threaten "mystical and occult" beliefs.

Math is the basis of genetics and most other sciences, rtard.

and evolution is the common thread that ties together genetics, ecology, physiology, pathology and every other field of the natural sciences.

Math allows us to understand genetics better. Math did not spawn genetics.

 

[geauxtohell]

Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.

Evolution doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of life. That's an entirely separate field, abiogenesis, and is much more controversial.

It's hard to take you guys seriously when it's obvious you've never even studied evolution before dismissing it outright.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is what gets me about the illogically committed to a belief. Anytime one reveals that s/he does not understand the difference between origins of species and origins of life in the evolution discussion, that person has nothing other than an opinion to offer.

 

[geauxtohell]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.

No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.

And that little "myth" was supported by the Supreme Court in 1987.

Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AllieBaba]

Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.

Evolution doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of life. That's an entirely separate field, abiogenesis, and is much more controversial.

It's hard to take you guys seriously when it's obvious you've never even studied evolution before dismissing it outright.

Don't be so fucking smug. I know evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, which is why I said what I did...evolution doesn't explain away a creator, despit what the non-believing fanatics pretend when they bring up "evolution" in a discussion about whether or not there's a creator. Before assuming you're all that, you might try reading for content next time.

 

[AllieBaba]

If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.

No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.

And that little "myth" was supported by the Supreme Court in 1987.

Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see nothing in that which supports the claim you're making.

 

[AllieBaba]

not a 'scientific theory'. it is not a GUESS. it is a CONCLUSION drawn from all evidence available at a point in time.

don't confuse that with one of us 'guessing' its going to be cold out tomorrow.

posts like this confirm alliebabe is just a troll

i think allie believes what she says. she feels that when people talk about science versus christianity, they're attacking christianity.

i think religion should be left to theologians and science should be left to scientists.

No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.

And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.

 

[geauxtohell]

Don't be so fucking smug. I know evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, which is why I said what I did...evolution doesn't explain away a creator, despit what the non-believing fanatics pretend when they bring up "evolution" in a discussion about whether or not there's a creator. Before assuming you're all that, you might try reading for content next time.

Sure you did, Allie.

The entire field of science is moot on the existence of the supernatural. It's beyond the scope of science to prove or refute the existence of God.

 

[geauxtohell]

I see nothing in that which supports the claim you're making.

You didn't read the ruling, then. The court found it was illegal to teach creationism in public schools as it equated to state endorsement of religion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.

Who would give a damn?

The teacher still has to follow the text book.

I kinda doubt the subject of faith would come up.

 

[JScott]

Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.

We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.

Actually I think YOU need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and fact. I doubt you know the difference, as you seem to be referring to a scientific theory as a hunch, which it's not. Gravity is an example of a scientific theory.

Can you tell me the last scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed, and proven wrong later? I don't mean "scientific theory" like the idea of a flat earth from hundreds of years ago that had no actual scientific basis. I'm talking about a theory that adheres to today's standards of that term.

This is a guess, Hawkings theory of everything?

 

[JScott]

It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.

This part of your post makes no sense.

Well I explained it in some detail. If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.

Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.

Point of order: Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.

What has creationism discovered? Are there any theories they can point to they have made?

What technologies can creationism point to that they have created?

 

[Trajan]

I would love to here this explained.....

no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F[/ame]

have you seen the movie?

 

[Toro]

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.

As long as they taught science in science class and not creationism, I wouldn't care one bit.

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly.