[_ Old Earth _] In schools

[Barbarian]

Could you rephrase that in English?

 

[Featherbop]

I know I'm very poorly expressing my arguements, but ok, here goes:

There is an atheist veiw of evolution.
There is a craetionist veiw of evolution.

They are both relgious veiws, and neither one is proven to be correct.

A random "big bang",and life emerging from non-life materials has not been shown to happen(ed). This is a big part of the atheist veiw.

That God created directly, the earth and universe, and that creatures did not evolve from premordial soup has not been proven either.

These are both relgious veiws.

Therefore, since they are not proven, and are relgious veiws, neither should be taught as fact. The students should not be brainwashed, but allowed to decide what they really believe is true.

However, what is true, has always been true, and some things have been proven to be true. Although there is dispute about what happens, and what it is, what really happens should be taught that it really happens.

No slant. Unfortunately, the public schools seem to support the atheist relgion.

 

[Barbarian]

There is an atheist veiw of evolution.
There is a craetionist veiw of evolution.

There is also a scientific view of evolution. That's the one you want to learn.

They are both relgious veiws, and neither one is proven to be correct.

We know the scientific theory of evolution is correct because it is the only one that can adequately explain the evidence.

A random "big bang",and life emerging from non-life materials has not been shown to happen(ed). This is a big part of the atheist veiw.

Maybe. However, these are not part of the theory of evolution.

That God created directly, the earth and universe, and that creatures did not evolve from premordial soup has not been proven either.

That has been directly refuted by God in Genesis. He tells us that the earth and waters brought forth living things. YE creationism is refuted by Scripture and science.

Therefore, since they are not proven, and are relgious veiws, neither should be taught as fact.

Since the theory is supported by the evidence, and can explain it, it would be less than honest to teach it as other than a fact.

The students should not be brainwashed, but allowed to decide what they really believe is true.

That would be like letting them decide whether or not the square root of 2 is irrational.

 

[Featherbop]

You seem to think everybody is obligated to believe in evolution according to the evidence.

So, you think everyone is obligated?

The scientific veiw of evolution is Biblical, or at very least doesn't contradict it.

If you want to call your scientific theory "evolution" its no problem, you can give a name to the proceeses God instituted any name you want, its what it is.

The big bang, and life evolving from non-life is the atheistic veiw of evolution. Its an unproven, relgious(or relgious like) veiw. It should not be taught as fact.

You are also take the Bible literally when its convienient to you. If it contradicts science so-called, you say its not literal.

God commanded life. It didn't evolve randomly. God also made adam from dust, so, technically, man did come from non-living matter.

You seem to be robbing God of His creation. All you care to talk about is evolution. Do you post about anything else unrelated to evolution?

The evidence can be made out to look like whatever anybody wants it too. They can connect the dots any way they care too, and have no idea what really happened.

Letting students form their own veiws of the origens of the universe is in no way irrational.

The origins of the universe has not been scientifically proven. Not letting people decide what they want to believe is taking away foundational freedom.

 

[Barbarian]

You seem to think everybody is obligated to believe in evolution according to the evidence.

So, you think everyone is obligated?

I never thought of it as an obligation. If you follow truth wherever it goes, you don't really have an obligation.

The scientific veiw of evolution is Biblical, or at very least doesn't contradict it.

True. Both science and scripture contradict creationism.

If you want to call your scientific theory "evolution" its no problem, you can give a name to the proceeses God instituted any name you want, its what it is.

In fact, they are the same thing, seem from two different POVs. Evolution is just the way He did it.

The big bang, and life evolving from non-life is the atheistic veiw of evolution.

Actually, no one I know of, with any scientific understanding, thinks either of those are part of evolutionary theory. Some atheists might. But there are ignorant atheists, just like there are among other sorts of people.

Its an unproven, relgious(or relgious like) veiw. It should not be taught as fact.

I should say not. Evolutionary theory isn't about those things at all.

You are also take the Bible literally when its convienient to you.

Some of the Bible is literal, and some is not. You can't take it as all literal or as all figurative.

If it contradicts science so-called,

You are aware that the "science" you're citing from scripture is not about science as we know it, don't you?

From the creationist site "Answers in Genesis", page "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use":

"The phrase “science falsely so called†in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.’ To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage. "

God commanded life. It didn't evolve randomly.

Of course it didn't. Without natural selection, it could never have produced the array of organisms we see today.

God also made adam from dust, so, technically, man did come from non-living matter.

Genesis says that all living things were brought forth by non-living matter. Man is different not in that he also was from the earth, but in that God breathed the breath of life directly into him, giving him an immortal soul.

You seem to be robbing God of His creation.

Nope. I'm just willing to let Him do it the way He did it.

All you care to talk about is evolution. Do you post about anything else unrelated to evolution?

This is a creation/evolution board. That's what we're here to talk about.

Would you like to discuss the virtues of the Leica III vs. the Contax II?

The evidence can be made out to look like whatever anybody wants it too. They can connect the dots any way they care too, and have no idea what really happened.

Johnny Cochran would have loved you as a juror.

Letting students form their own veiws of the origens of the universe is in no way irrational.

Er, by "irrational", I meant a number that could not be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers. The square root of two is irrational. I was pointing out how foolish it would be to let students decide for themselves such a question. They have need of that fact long before they can prove it for themselves.

The origins of the universe has not been scientifically proven.

In science, nothing is ever proven. We just get greater and greater confidence as evidence accumulates. And, as you learned earlier, this is not part of evolutionary theory.

Not letting people decide what they want to believe is taking away foundational freedom.

We do students no good by lying to them about such things. On the other hand, letting them discover truths for themselves is a very good teaching method. I use a number of labs and simulations in which they can discover why evolution works the way it does.

 

[Featherbop]

Thanks for repeating yourself barbarian. :roll:

The bottom line is: Teach what is true. Do not teach(as fact) what is not true.

The public schools support the atheistic veiws of evolution, not the christian one, or probably much "evolutionary truth".

The public schools and their leaders are hypocrites and idiots the vast majority of the time. We are done with this topic.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The theory of Evolution is not atheistic, it simply doesn't require a god to exist.
It doesn't contradict christianity, it contradicts creationism, especially Young Earth Creationism. Public schools are not supporting any religion or nonreligion, they are and must ought to remain, secular.

We are done with this topic.

Hardly. Your opinion is not definative.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for repeating yourself barbarian.

A great deal of learning gained by repetition.

The bottom line is: Teach what is true. Do not teach(as fact) what is not true. [/qutte]

That's why we teach evolution. It's directly observed to be true.

[quote:8f501]The public schools support the atheistic veiws of evolution,

Name me a school that teaches atheism as part of evolutionary theory, and in which classes it does so. I'll write them a letter myself. I've looked for years for such a school, but it's always just stories.

The public schools and their leaders are hypocrites and idiots the vast majority of the time.

Some places. But even in the Southeast, there are shining examples of excellence. And in the upper midwest, our students rival the best in the world. At least that's what the Third Annual Mathematics and Science Study for 8th graders worldwide showed. We have no national standards for education, and some states really fail to do a good job.

We are done with this topic.

[/quote:8f501]

Well, I'd appreciate you giving me the names of those schools that teach atheism as part of evolutionary theory.

 

[Featherbop]

barbarian: its not part of the curriculum. its indirect you could say.

They have to stand for something, but they make it an atheist agenda.

barbarian, again, I understand that if the name evolution is what the processes and happenings are called, thats fine. When they teach other things that aren't true as fact, I get bothered.

___

Syntax: I never said my opinion was the end. I'm done with the disscussion, simply because the I've established the point a few times. If you reject or accept it is your opinion is all thats left as far as I'm concerned. And I don't care what you do.

_______

My point(s) is/are very valid

We are finished.

 

[Barbarian]

The public schools support the atheistic veiws of evolution,

Barbarian asks:
Name me a school that teaches atheism as part of evolutionary theory, and in which classes it does so. I'll write them a letter myself. I've looked for years for such a school, but it's always just stories.

its not part of the curriculum. its indirect you could say.

So they don't actually teach it? So what do they do that promotes atheism? And which schools are these? I promise to write them and criticise them myself.

They have to stand for something, but they make it an atheist agenda.

If it's not part of the curriculum, what evidence do you have for this?

again, I understand that if the name evolution is what the processes and happenings are called, thats fine. When they teach other things that aren't true as fact, I get bothered.

What things do you think are not fact in evolutionary theory?

 

[Wertbag]

I think you're both arguing different topics, isn't life from non-living material abiogensis? Uray/Miller experiment and all of that argument?
Looks like Bop is concerned about the start of life and not necassary with what happened to it after it was created.
Barbarian you seem very well researched on these subjects, whats your education background? And what are your views on abiogenesis?

 

[Featherbop]

Wertbag: I do think we are arguing loosely, and unneccesarily. I don't deny that living things change over time. I have always believed that.

I just don't believe in all changes that are assumed. I don't believe humans were ever any less human, but different yes, but still just as human as we.

I do believe Life came from non-living matter. the Bible tells this.
I do not agree that life came from the oceans and evolved fromb that into what is here today. I believe that god created, directly, and allowed for limited change of His creation. Call it evolution, or skafjjsdhusd or whatever. change happens, so what?

The Uray/Miller experiment did not produce life, simply non-living products, or building blocks of life. not the same.

______

barbarian: do you not see how schools have gotten away from God, morals, etc? This is taking a veiw that god isn't there, and that people are mindless animals. I seen, read and heard how kids are taught these atheistic proponents. I'm not going to argue about this anymore.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Wertbag: I do think we are arguing loosely, and unneccesarily. I don't deny that living things change over time. I have always believed that.

I just don't believe in all changes that are assumed. I don't believe humans were ever any less human, but different yes, but still just as human as we.

Evidence suggests otherwise. The geological and fossil records show that for most of the earth's history there hasn't been anything resembling a human, a primate or even a mammal.

______

barbarian: do you not see how schools have gotten away from God, morals, etc? This is taking a veiw that god isn't there, and that people are mindless animals. I seen, read and heard how kids are taught these atheistic proponents. I'm not going to argue about this anymore.

Schools shouldn't support god in any way, they are a secular government institution, with federal funding, and are subject to the constitution. The support of god would be an endorsement of religion which is constitutional.
Morals on the other hand are things schools ought to teach. I wish there had been an ethics course at my high school at any rate. Morals are taught underhandedly through young literature typically.
Children are NOT taught that they are mindless, animals yes that's what humans are, but not mindless. Critical thinking is one of the few skills that can be taught very effectively at young ages and ought to be taught.

Furthermore saying that the image of humans in atheist philosophy is that of a mindless animal without morals is a strawman. This is something that no atheist would claim let alone think.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm a biologist. My post-graduate work was in Systems, with an emphasis on Human Factors. I worked in industry as an ergonomist for many years, until I retired. Now I teach 8th grade science. Much more challenging than ergonomics.

 

[Barbarian]

barbarian: do you not see how schools have gotten away from God, morals, etc?

No, I don't. We still teach honesty, modesty, and the golden rule in schools. We still say "under God" (although it's illegal, it's what Madison called a "de minimus" violation IMO) and we still try to instill American values in students. These are, of course, things parents should do, not schools, but often we are the only source of such values for kids.

This is taking a veiw that god isn't there,

Sorry about your school. Mine certainly doesn't. If you could tell me which school that is, I would certainly add my name to the people criticising them.

and that people are mindless animals.

You must live in the Southeast. Where I live, we never assume that the kids are mindless animals. We have higher expectations for them than that.

I seen, read and heard how kids are taught these atheistic proponents. I'm not going to argue about this anymore.

I've heard people say so, but when I ask for some names, or what textbooks are doing this, no one knows.

I think I know why.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Barb, I thought you live in the Southeast. I fail to see why the Southeast should be pegged as a place where they view students as ignorant masses... I think the truth is that there are isolated classes all over the world in which that false pedagogy is spread.

BL

 

[Barbarian]

I live in Texas. And about 20 years or so, we were about as bad as many southeastern states. Then we got serious about education. Texas has a way to go, but we're going the right way.

And there are systems in the Southeast that are good ones. But the average school system in the Southeastern US is not very good.

I've seen the TIMMS data, and it isn't encouraging.

It's not really a consequence of whether or not evolution is taught. It's systemic. It's a matter of how serious people are about education.

 

[Featherbop]

A school is not going to neccesarily do better if evolution is taught. In the southeast, there are many,many bad schools. Bad use of funds, uncaring students and parents/teachers, poor school leaders all contribute to the mess.

Too bad public schools aren't evolving....

 

[Featherbop]

Wertbag: I do think we are arguing loosely, and unneccesarily. I don't deny that living things change over time. I have always believed that.

I just don't believe in all changes that are assumed. I don't believe humans were ever any less human, but different yes, but still just as human as we.

Evidence suggests otherwise. The geological and fossil records show that for most of the earth's history there hasn't been anything resembling a human, a primate or even a mammal.

______

barbarian: do you not see how schools have gotten away from God, morals, etc? This is taking a veiw that god isn't there, and that people are mindless animals. I seen, read and heard how kids are taught these atheistic proponents. I'm not going to argue about this anymore.

Schools shouldn't support god in any way, they are a secular government institution, with federal funding, and are subject to the constitution. The support of god would be an endorsement of religion which is constitutional.
Morals on the other hand are things schools ought to teach. I wish there had been an ethics course at my high school at any rate. Morals are taught underhandedly through young literature typically.
Children are NOT taught that they are mindless, animals yes that's what humans are, but not mindless. Critical thinking is one of the few skills that can be taught very effectively at young ages and ought to be taught.

Furthermore saying that the image of humans in atheist philosophy is that of a mindless animal without morals is a strawman. This is something that no atheist would claim let alone think.

"mindless" was not the right word. I'll just say animals from now on.
I retract that.

As far as earths history goes, I'm not going to go around that now. We wouldn't be able to agree on most of it, much less disscuss it.

And don't worry about government supporting God. The country should, the government can't/won't do it.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Individuals can do as they like, but if you want an example of governments claiming divine right to rule over their people, take a look at absolutist Europe and you'll figure out why the enlightenment came about and why we took most of the rights and liberties championed by the philosophes and put them into the constitution.