Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2008-05-23 3:27 PM
in reply to: #1422117

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom
dcossey - 2008-05-23 3:25 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-05-23 12:15 PM
dcossey - 2008-05-23 3:02 PM
Global - 2008-05-23 11:49 AM
dcossey - 2008-05-23 11:32 AM
Global - 2008-05-23 9:59 AM
dcossey - 2008-05-23 9:39 AM

So, here is the question. What would be wrong with introducing these approaches in the classroom?

Nothing. Just not in a science class. It's not science.

Hmm... A bit of a circular statement....

What? I get from your post on page 2 that you don't think evolution is science, but you are wrong. It is science.

If we can't agree on that though there is no point in discussing this because we are too far apart to have any meaningful discussion.

I've been rather verbose on this subject, so I'm not sure exactly which post you mean. At one point, I did say that Creation does not necessarily = religion and that Evolution does not necessarily = science. I explained that there are a lot of qualifying conditions that could invalidate either statement. It is also dependent on what we mean when we say "science" are we talking about the scientific process or are we talking about accepted facts that have been established by the scientific process. Also, it depends on what we mean when we say evolution. It is also a very broad concept that gets discussed in very narrow confines.

Now, to the point as to why your last statement is circular: You say, Creation isn't science therefore it must not be taught in science class. This is circular logic. It begs the question "Why is creation not science?" If you believe creation is not science, that is great, but it doesn't change the spherical shape of your argument.

 

Creation isn't science because it isn't based on the scientific method: it's not testable. Creation in the context you're using it is story contrived to justify disbelief in evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, *is* very much science. It's supported by observable micro-evoultion, and macroevolution is supported by the transitional species in the fossil record, and interspecies DNA testing of currently existing species.

 

 

Creation contrived to justify disbelief in evolution???  Okay.....  if you say so??? 

Yes....in the context you're using it. That's exactly what "intellignt design" is...a way for fundamentalist Christians to sneak theology into the science classroom as a means of discrediting evolution.

You're saying, if I understand correctly, that creation the way it's being taught in schools isn't Biblical creation. So, then, what is it exactly? An alternate hypothesis to evolution. Based on what? A creator poofing all species into existence simultaneously. And that, my friend, is not by any stretch of the imagination science. It's smoke and mirrors, both literally and figuratively.

Another poster spoke about the Bible being the literal word of God. Isn't it possible that Genesis is metaphor for evolution? And that God set it all in motion? 

 

 



2008-05-23 3:55 PM
in reply to: #1422240

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom

One last thought: If ID *is* science, and it's goal *isn't* to discredit evolution, then what is it exactly?

If it aims to prove divine creation of the species, then, by extension it's goal is to prove the existence of God. And that's a problem. At least in the case of Christianity, the entire postulate of religion is based on faith. If you prove God exists, then you eliminate the need for faith. And in doing so, Christianity becomes irrelevant. Is that what you want?

So talk all you want about science killing God; what's really doing it is the quest to prove he exists.

 

2008-05-23 3:59 PM
in reply to: #1422240

User image

Extreme Veteran
303
100100100
Champaign, Illinois
Subject: RE: Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom
run4yrlif - 2008-05-23 1:27 PM dcossey - 2008-05-23 3:25 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-05-23 12:15 PM

Creation contrived to justify disbelief in evolution??? Okay..... if you say so???

Yes....in the context you're using it. That's exactly what "intellignt design" is...a way for fundamentalist Christians to sneak theology into the science classroom as a means of discrediting evolution.

You're saying, if I understand correctly, that creation the way it's being taught in schools isn't Biblical creation. So, then, what is it exactly? An alternate hypothesis to evolution. Based on what? A creator poofing all species into existence simultaneously. And that, my friend, is not by any stretch of the imagination science. It's smoke and mirrors, both literally and figuratively.

Another poster spoke about the Bible being the literal word of God. Isn't it possible that Genesis is metaphor for evolution? And that God set it all in motion?

 

 

Well... anything is possible, of course. I don't think I've made myself 100% clear to you, but that is always a problem in these type of discussions. I do agree with you that many people do care only about discrediting evolution. That, however, is not what I'm talking about.

Let me see if I can reword what I'm saying to make more sense... then I'll leave it there and stop beating this horse... What if there is a way to use the scientific process to explain naturally occurring evidence that creates a scientific model of the biological nature of life which points to an intelligent creator? Why should we be afraid to examine that concept from a scientific perspective? Even if once it gets all examined everyone still says it's wrong? Why not look at it?

See, I'm not talking about "The Bible says... therefore..."

Anyway... thanks for the debate...



Edited by dcossey 2008-05-23 4:02 PM
2008-05-23 4:02 PM
in reply to: #1422310

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom
dcossey - 2008-05-23 4:59 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-05-23 1:27 PM dcossey - 2008-05-23 3:25 PM
run4yrlif - 2008-05-23 12:15 PM

Creation contrived to justify disbelief in evolution??? Okay..... if you say so???

Yes....in the context you're using it. That's exactly what "intellignt design" is...a way for fundamentalist Christians to sneak theology into the science classroom as a means of discrediting evolution.

You're saying, if I understand correctly, that creation the way it's being taught in schools isn't Biblical creation. So, then, what is it exactly? An alternate hypothesis to evolution. Based on what? A creator poofing all species into existence simultaneously. And that, my friend, is not by any stretch of the imagination science. It's smoke and mirrors, both literally and figuratively.

Another poster spoke about the Bible being the literal word of God. Isn't it possible that Genesis is metaphor for evolution? And that God set it all in motion?

 

 

Well... anything is possible, of course. I don't think I've made myself 100% clear to you, but that is always a problem in these type of discussions. I do agree with you that many people do care only about discrediting evolution. That, however, is not what I'm talking about.

Let me see if I can reword what I'm saying to make more sense... then I'll leave it there and stop beating this horse... What if there is a way to use the scientific process to explain naturally occurring evidence that creates a scientific model of the biological nature of life which points to an intelligent creator? Why should we be afraid to examine that concept from a scientific perspective? Even if once it gets all examined everyone still says it's wrong? Why not look at it?

See, I'm not talking about "The Bible says... therefore..."

Anyway... thanks for the debate...

It's not wrong, it's unnecessary. Faith is all you need.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4