Article

2008-09-16 Home Front: Politix

Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2008-09-16 07:02|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Creationism is crap. And, I believe it is sinful to believe in it. Why? Simple, it takes the outright denial of God's gifts, the gifts of reason and logic, to believe in that fantasy. And to deny God's gifts is to deny God.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2008-09-16 08:59|| 2008-09-16 08:59|| Front Page Top

#2 Agreed, what if all scientists ran around trying to figure out a way to reduce all science to "God did it". We'd still be burning witches and drilling holes in peoples heads to let the evil spirits out. What we have learned at every pass is that there is a reason, a system, a symetry or a physical law deep down in the biggest mystery that need only to be discovered. Otherwise there is no point in even asking "why?".

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-09-16 09:41|| 2008-09-16 09:41|| Front Page Top

#3 Funny, I feel the same way about the Theory of Evolution.

It's not science. Why? Because it's not repeatable.

Furthermore, the methods used to teach it in the public schools are little less than propaganda. Ernst Haeckel's wood carvings of embryonic development are known to be fraudulent, yet they are in EVERY biology text used in the public schools. And this is ONE quibble with the way evolution is taught, I have more issues with the teaching of evolution than I have time to type here.

Don't misunderstand me. God gave us the gifts of reason and logic. Science is a result of those gifts and we are to use it to learn about the world around us. If God created us by evolution then glory be to God! If God created us as literally described in the book of Genesis, then glory be to God. But let's weigh the evidence from both sides on the same scale, and not one rule for me and another for thee.

Posted by DLR 2008-09-16 10:46|| http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]">[http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html] 2008-09-16 10:46|| Front Page Top

#4 I am coming back to a belief in a literal six-day creation, mainly due to certain facts that science tends to ignore.

At the same time, I do NOT support the teaching of Creationism in schools: evolutionists have become as venal dealing with Creationism as the MSM is when dealing with Republicans, so I expect them to screw it up.

Better that it be taught in the home and Church, where all the facts can be put on the table without intimidation.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-09-16 10:52|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-09-16 10:52|| Front Page Top

#5 Creationism doesn't matter, because it is not scientific, so should not be taught in a science class.

Any more than checkers should be taught in chess class. Checkers has its own validity, but it is not chess. It is a different game.

Importantly, science does *not* explain the universe. That is not its function. Science is a strict set of rules, and if you perform those rules, you will have conducted a scientific experiment. THAT IS ALL.

If you play a game of chess by the rules, that is all you have done as well. A chess player may win almost entirely using his knights, but that does not "prove" that knights are inherently superior as chess pieces.

The problem arises when people interpolate and extrapolate from scientific experiments, and still call it science. It is not. It may be accurate as all get out, but it is not science. Science is a closed system.

Because of this mistaken assumption, everybody wants to steal the credibility of science for non-scientific purposes. Things like anecdotal results, subjectivity, opinion, religion, and Al Gore are not scientific either.

Even in a university, there should be a debate. Studies like history, anthropology, psychology, etc. are called "Social Sciences", but in fact are "Social Studies", even though each incorporate very limited scientific analysis, for things like statistics.

They are 99% non-scientific, but importantly, they are still valid as studies. As are religious and philosophical studies, even if the people studying them are non-believers.

So again, the bottom line is that Creationism should not be taught in a science class, any more than it should be taught in a music class, a P.E. class, a shop class, or French class.

And this says nothing about the value or accuracy of Creationism. Just that it does not conform to the rules of science, so it is not scientific.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-09-16 11:27|| 2008-09-16 11:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Intelligent Design is a better approach than Creationism, but it certainly deserves equal time in the classroom. Presenting only evolulution is propoganda, not education.

Posted by Danielle 2008-09-16 12:04|| 2008-09-16 12:04|| Front Page Top

#7 Educate yourselves, please. Evolution is a multifacted theory on the development of life. While macro-evolution is not repeatable in a laboratory, micro-evolution most certainly IS repeatable. People need to understand basic science. Science realizes that our understanding of the world is incomplete and sometimes flawed. Science strives to improve its understanding. The Theory of Evolution has evolved greatly from the days of Charles Darwin.

Ptah, can you please elaborate on these "facts" that science tends to ignore?

Intelligent Design is a crock of shit. I firmly believe in God and a Creator. Belief in one does not preclude belief in the other. Only ignorant preachers want you to think otherwise. Science seeks to answer the question, how? Not why, or even by whom. Evolution is a thoroughly vetted scientific principle, that is contiuously debated and refined by scientists. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it 'propoganda'. If we are going to teach ID or creationist bullshit, then we'll also need to teach Hindu creation myth. And Native American creation myth as well.

I could quote a dozen passages from the Bible that tells us the Earth is flat! Are we going to teach that crap to? God, is shaking his head in heaven, wondering how people can turn their backs on the gifts he's given them.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2008-09-16 14:16|| 2008-09-16 14:16|| Front Page Top

#8 Above my pay grade. And irrelevant to my mission.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-16 14:33|| 2008-09-16 14:33|| Front Page Top

#9 Presenting only evolulution is propoganda, not education.

The teaching of creationism and ID belongs in Religious Education lessons. Scientific theories such as evolution should be discussed in science lessons. If the students don't want to sit through a science lesson including evolution they should have the decency to keep quiet and stop studying biology at the first opportunity they have, just as the science-orinetated students might want to ditch RE. I'm sure we all had less-favroured subjects at school.

Posted by Bulldog 2008-09-16 14:56|| 2008-09-16 14:56|| Front Page Top

#10 Personally, I have no objection to teaching creationism in schools - as long as it's my creation myth and not yours.

Posted by Ulumble B. Hayes5266 2008-09-16 15:20|| 2008-09-16 15:20|| Front Page Top

#11 Creationism has no bizness in early-age public schools. Intelligent design can (and I believe in it), but not in science curriculum. Sorry. It's a faith thing that we should inculcate at home and church, and which has place in a higher-than-elementary level classes with reflection on the world at large. Once you start with a simple question: "how did the universe start?" All the rest is fair game, and God becomes a better answer than anything else, no?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-09-16 19:56|| 2008-09-16 19:56|| Front Page Top

#12 So, Frank G, who's God are you going to put in classrooms? First, let's be honest. Intelligent Design is merely a new code-word for Creationism. If people want to contemplate the meaning of life and the origin of existence, that's fine for say a college level philosophy class. And of course home and Church. I strongly believe in an almighty God and that Jesus was His Son and that He created this universe with all its splendor. But, mankind's knowledge of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. And that growth is through God's gifts (reason and logic), and I believe through God's own plan. After all, did he not create us in His image? To believe in the biblical creation requires a person ignore reality. Why can some ignorant preachers discard the parts of the Bible that tell us the Earth is flat or the Earth is the center of the universe, but can't accept Genesis as metaphor? How many people here also believe Noah really fit 2 of every kind of animal on his tiny little boat?

Posted by AllahHateMe 2008-09-16 21:14|| 2008-09-16 21:14|| Front Page Top

#13 IMHO - I believe God exists and no physical proof will verify that, other than, "where did we (all material) come from?" To date, no atheist has been able to answer that. Once you put that "first thought" in kid's minds, they will be equipped to evaluate the rest. Or not. I am a Roman Catholic, but believe people should come to their conclusions on their own. My "first thought" should logically lead a sentient being to the fact that there's something higher than us, or to try and explain how everything came into being otherwise. If they could do that, they're a higher intellect than I (not a select criteria, I acknowledge). I believe the bible incorporates metaphors and stories to explain history. I do not believe Noah saved all species via the Ark (ridiculous on its' face) but it was a metaphor for successive pre-history of global wiping of species...
OK? Flame away

that's what I would teach, and I would encourage students to explore on their own, and logically defend their theses. End results? It all comes back to faith and my "first thoughts*"

*no, I didn't "first think" em, so shuddup

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-09-16 21:31|| 2008-09-16 21:31|| Front Page Top

#14 The first 11 chapters of Genesis do read quite a bit different than the chapters from 12 on. Eden isn't a particularly concrete place. Ur-of-the-Chaldeans, however, was. Where in the world is the Pishon River? (I'll give you the Tigris and Euphrates.)

The style is definitely creation myth, and I'm totally cool with that. The Church has gotten itself in a bind by trying to insist Genesis 1-11 are literal.

So why write it that way? I suspect that the early Hebrews had any particular interest in knowing the specifics about creation. The differential equations alone would have likely given them fits. They'd never get off chapter 1 and what good would that have done anyone?

Posted by eLarson 2008-09-16 22:09|| 2008-09-16 22:09|| Front Page Top

#15 If creationism is how it really happened, prove it. It's that simple, just give us some scrap of proof. Anything will do. But it has to be more than bible verses, I've heard them. I don't believe in your religion, therefore I have no burden of "faith" to adhere to. Therefore I require proof of some tangible kind.
Evolutionists have spent the last century putting the pieces together to map our past. They have fossils and core samples and shit like that, but what PROOF do creationists have other than pointing out the spots evolutionists havent filled in yet? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't make any sense to me, it never did, even when I was a kid I had questions that they couldn't answer.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-09-16 23:44|| 2008-09-16 23:44|| Front Page Top

23:44 bigjim-ky
23:41 Red Dawg
23:40 Abdominal Snowman
23:32 Sherry
23:31 Red Dawg
23:29 Red Dawg
23:24 Mike N.
23:21 bigjim-ky
23:19 Chons Grundy8202
23:12 Unereting Guelph8787
22:55 Pappy
22:51 Matt
22:47 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division
22:47 SKIDMARK
22:42 Alaska Paul in Tok, AK
22:39 Jiggs Elmoluger3473
22:38 SKIDMARK
22:38 FOTSGreg
22:36 Grunter
22:26 CrazyFool
22:25 Broadhead6
22:25 Abdominal Snowman
22:22 badanov
22:19 Frank G