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

[blu]

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.

yea its pretty hilarious actually. I remember the first time I brought up abiogenisis here and tons of people who were evolution-deniers never even heard of it

 

[blu]

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.

no one has said those people shouldnt teach science, just that they should actually teach SCIENCE and not there version of creation. again the link I posted in the OP stated that 13% of teachers surveryed were teaching creationism instead of biology

 

[AllieBaba]

who denied evolution?

Please name names.

 

[blu]

"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.

from the link in my OP

In comparison, 13 percent of the teachers said they "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." These are mostly the same group of teachers (about 14 percent) who personally reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method, and believe that God created humans on Earth in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. (That 14 percent included teachers' personal beliefs, regardless of whether they taught these in the classroom.)

they are teaching creationism in the classroom instead of real science

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

no one has said those people shouldnt teach science, just that they should actually teach SCIENCE and not there version of creation. again the link I posted in the OP stated that 13% of teachers surveryed were teaching creationism instead of biology

yes, they have. Read the thread. And the QUESTION the thread starts with is how you would feel if a creationist was teaching science.

NOT what if a creationist was teaching about God in science class.

 

[blu]

"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.

try reading the link

In comparison, 13 percent of the teachers said they "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." These are mostly the same group of teachers (about 14 percent) who personally reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method, and believe that God created humans on Earth in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. (That 14 percent included teachers' personal beliefs, regardless of whether they taught these in the classroom.)

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

What does this have to do with anything though? Science is defined many different ways but most of us have the gist of what it is and what it is not. It is not certainty of anything but is a collection of facts from which a conclusion of probability or possibility can be devised:

Some Definitions of Science
(An addendum to the GEOL 1122 reading on "What is, and isn't, Science")

Each of these sections begins with conventional definitions or comments and moves toward less conventional but perhaps more revealing statements.

Definitions by goal and process:

Science is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.
Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb in a lecture series at the University of South Alabama



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world.
from the Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science consists simply of the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on observational evidence; experiments are important where applicable, but their function is merely to simplify observation by imposing controlled conditions.
Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (2nd edition)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).

What is Science?

Science is the study of what we don't know as much as study of what we already know or think we know.

Speaking as a Creationist/I.D.er who believes herself to be square in the middle of the mainstream of that group, I can say that most Creationists and/or I.D.ers have no quarrel whatsoever with science UNTIL it presumes to know more than is known.

And most of us see the Creator as the author or designer of science and everything else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Of course they, and if they teach it in a public tax-supported school, they teach evolution while referring students to a comparative religions or creations myth class.

 

[rdean]

There are no discoveries that come from teaching "magical creation" was an "event" that really happened.

Unlike evolution and all of the "old earth" sciences.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Electron Theory
http://www.autolabscopediagnostics.com/electron.htm_

A new theory of Magnetic Fields
Magnetic Fields a new theory

Magnetism and magnetic fields
Magnetism and magnetic fields

Pointing to other people who similarly don't understand what a scientific theory is, and citing backwater unused websites with ZERO credentials or authors, while ignoring the fact that the articles appear to be written like grade school book reports and have no citations to the source of their information, very thoroughly points out your ignorance on the topic.

Give me a date of the last time an actual scientific study which adhered to today's standards of that scientific term was reverted or shot down. Give me the name of the theory and a year. Because so far, all you've offered is a bunch of non-theories, and crappy websites that also exhibit your degree of misunderstanding.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I guess Max Planck, who developed quantum theory, and Albert Einstein should never have been allowed to share their ideas, those dumb creationists.

People often point to long gone scientists and project their ideas as to what they would believe in today's culture. You should not confuse religion of decades ago as today's understanding of creationism, nor does it have anything to do with teaching SCIENCE in a public school today. Einstein had a habit of forgetting where he lived as a child. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic any more than citing his religious affiliation in relation to his contribution to science.

Creationism is a theory

No, no it's not. It does not meet the standards of the scientific term "theory" and should not be treated as such. It is a non-scientific idea rooted in no physical supporting evidence.

There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.

The first half of the sentence is false, and evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. You continue to show your ignorance and lack of education on this topic, yet fail to recognize the worthlessness of your opinion.

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.

This is also false, as GTH pointed out. Ignorance manifested once again.

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.

Except science is not attacking Christianity. Science is putting forth good education, and Christians are being threatened by it. As I said in another thread: a lion doesn't care to attack the little ants beneath its feet, but the ants still feel attacked and swarm.

This really speaks to your prejudices and perspective here. You have previously stated that you would ban your children from attending a school that put forth any ideas from other religions, but seem to have no problem if your own religious beliefs are pushed onto other children. Quite the hypocrite.

No one is discriminating based on a the personal religion of a teacher. But problems DO arise when those religious beliefs enter a scientific classroom.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?

Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created. Not a thing. It doesn't even address how life came into being. The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.

I feel the same way about science class. There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is: Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.

NO! There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.

Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement. You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

A person believe in creation and teach science. I have done just that in the past. Science encompasses many things. My kids were very well informed on how different landforms are made by tectonic plate movement, erosion and glacial activity. I believe you have a lot of anger management and socialization issues, but I can still teach you science.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't know how many times I have to keep saying "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION" before you guys get the hint and keep telling me "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION".

Of course, it's confusing because you then turn around and say that evolution and creationism can't exist side by side...

Wait..

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION.

I'm saying it again in case you didn't read it the first 5000 times I wrote it on this board over the past few years.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't know how many times I have to keep saying "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION" before you guys get the hint and keep telling me "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION".

Of course, it's confusing because you then turn around and say that evolution and creationism can't exist side by side...

Wait..

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION.

I'm saying it again in case you didn't read it the first 5000 times I wrote it on this board over the past few years.

Oh, no you misunderstand. I was saying you have a poor understanding of the topic for the other part of that sentence, being "There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature." Let me know if you have questions, or believe anything else I've stated in response to you is incorrect.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not that it's incorrect, it's that it's completely irrelevant, since I agree.

Your side is the side that insists that Creationists can't teach evolution, after all.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, no. I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution. Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument. The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism. It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.

Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?

 

[AllieBaba]

You haven't read the thread then. the thread which starts out with the question "would you want a creationist teaching SCIENCE". Not teaching creationism.

But carry on anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

no one has said those people shouldnt teach science, just that they should actually teach SCIENCE and not there version of creation. again the link I posted in the OP stated that 13% of teachers surveryed were teaching creationism instead of biology

yes, they have. Read the thread. And the QUESTION the thread starts with is how you would feel if a creationist was teaching science.

NOT what if a creationist was teaching about God in science class.

Well said. The cognitively challenged don't seem to understand what the thesis of the thread is. It was not an invitation to discuss the pros and cons of Creationism or Intelligent Design but rather to determine who would judge a teacher not by what he or she taught but by what he or she believed. And it was not specified as to what a Creationist was.

I would not want anybody who openly denied the possibility/probability of Evolution teaching my kids biology, zoology or any related science classes. Such a person would be too likely to have a closed mind and be unable to effectively teach the concepts of the scientific opinion objectively and without prejudice. What the teacher personally believed would be irrelevent as long as he or she did not insert it into the class content.

I would not want anybody who openly denied the possibility/probability of Creationism or Intelligent Design teaching my kids any form of science. Such a person would be too likely to have a closed mind and be unable to teach science objectively and without prejudice. What the teacher personally believed would be irrelevent as long as he or she did not insert it into the class content.

I don't want science taught as religion.
I don't want Creationism/Intelligent design to be taught as science.

I wouldn't want somebody like SmarterthanHick teaching anybody as he seems to think it is okay to neg rep people who are simply expressing an opinion and making an argument for a point of view. I think he's hit me with neg rep three times now. I think too many people who hold Creationists or IDers in such low opinion would not be able to keep their prejudices out of the classroom and would be too likely to retaliate against those who offend them.

 

[blu]

I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?

Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created. Not a thing. It doesn't even address how life came into being. The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.

I feel the same way about science class. There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is: Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.

NO! There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.

Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement. You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?

you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.