[_ Old Earth _] Wisconsin district to allow theories besides evolution

[Scott]

And why do you keep quoting Scripture to me? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not Christian. Scripture means nothing to me.

Did you read the URL.... this is a Christian forum. It shouldn't be strange that many of us quote God's Word regardless of whether you are a Christian or not.

 

[Spike~]

And why do you keep quoting Scripture to me? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not Christian. Scripture means nothing to me.

Did you read the URL.... this is a Christian forum. It shouldn't be strange that many of us quote God's Word regardless of whether you are a Christian or not.

I know full well what kind of place this is. But it's useless trying to quote Scripture to someone who considers it to be nothing more than myths and lies.

 

[bibleberean]

And why do you keep quoting Scripture to me? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not Christian. Scripture means nothing to me.

Did you read the URL.... this is a Christian forum. It shouldn't be strange that many of us quote God's Word regardless of whether you are a Christian or not.

I know full well what kind of place this is. But it's useless trying to quote Scripture to someone who considers it to be nothing more than myths and lies.

Psalms 92:5 O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.

Psalms 92:6 A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Teaching the creationist theory isn't cramming it down anyone's throat. If anything has been crammed down anyone's throat, it's been evolution.

All of them, to be tolerant of people with differing degrees of religious commitment to literalism. I disagree with the literal 6-day creation view. I don't think a commitment to taking the Bible seriously requires it. But here's the thing, something can be true even if it is scientifically 'less accurate'. Let me explain.

It's not a matter of lack of scientific accuracy, it's a matter of the fact that THERE IS NO pervailing evidence at all that any of the things in the creation account from Genesis for instance. By making the required credibility of the claim, based on the evidence presented with accuracy and corroboration, as flimsy as the credibility of the Genesis account, then you open the door up for a worthlessly large set of theories that are just as credible. (Raeleons created humans? Sure, fits in the curriculum. Humans are a form of snot created by deities which are in fact the ancient gigantic broccoli birds? Wonderful!)

Where do babies grow? If you ask a pre-modern Jewish peasant during Jesus' time, babies grow in the mom's belly. If you ask almost anyone today, babies come from fertilised eggs that grow in the uterus.

The two views are not 'right' and 'wrong' they are less accurate and more accurate. The difference is not that we know the 'facts of life' and they didn't, we understand them in more detail than they did. People in a hundred years will know even more about the details than we do now. That means they will be even more accurate.

False analogy, you're attempting to say that genesis creationism is a less accurate account of the theories that are now considered the basis for modern science. The Genesis account has not got confirmable assumptions like Evolution theory does and furthermore one can't even count the Genesis account as a theory as it really has no evidence backing it up save for scripture, which itself is not corroborated by any physical evidence(w/ regard to the Genesis account)

Accuracy may be beneficial in its own right, but it isn't necessary for faith. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always looked out on the world around us, observed creation, and concluded that we owe our thanks to a Creator. This is what the Jewish people did when they wrote the creation stories in Genesis. We may look at what they wrote and think we know more accurately how God created. Nevertheless, since we both know God created, we agree. Because when it comes down to it, humans will never grasp the full details of it, only God can know that. The creation stories of Genesis look like someone was trying to explain the origins of life to children. That isn't a bad thing. It reminds us to have faith like a child.

Wonderful, so they're nothing more than tools for promoting faith. Well you'll be sorry to note that our schools are part of a government that is held to a standard of secular aloofness in deference to the diversity of opinions and religions there are. As such they cannot support an opinion that is religious and would not support an opinion without any reason to believe it. As you've confirmed both of these things for your support for the teaching of creation in schools, you've defeated yourself.

 

[paxigoth7]

Which is had been my point all along... that the theology of Genesis is more relevant than the entire scientific question.

I'm not saying that evolution is (factually) true or false. It can be either as far as I'm concerned.

Let's assume that it is. In that case, what matters is whether or not we interpret the data in a theistic light (which can and should be done).

Which brings me back to what I consider the real question... the one of a Creator. If the 'scientific' opinion is that it is about 50-50 (as you admitted) then that all the more enhances the legitimacy of teaching theories that are Creator-centred. Since either could become the 'dominating' theory easily, public schools should be required to teach both.

Much of what I've said revolves around the notion of the government making provision for Christians and their beliefs. If necessary, the government should be willing to give education vouchers to people and let them send their children to a school where their own beliefs will be taught. They have the right to do that. So do non-Christians. A voucher programme should ensure that parents can still choose, even while sending their children to government-paid schools. I'm a big fan of private Christian education. But people shouldn't have to pay extra for it.

We're not asking for everyone to accept our view, or to cram it down anyone's throat. We're just asking for the same rights that everyone else has.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Which brings me back to what I consider the real question... the one of a Creator. If the 'scientific' opinion is that it is about 50-50 (as you admitted) then that all the more enhances the legitimacy of teaching theories that are Creator-centred. Since either could become the 'dominating' theory easily, public schools should be required to teach both.

1: What in the world are you talking about, those scientists don't require evolution to be creator centered, even if they are christians. They believe it to be but it has no bearing on the theory. Half of the scientific community just believes that god did it, but they do not have any evidence to show god is part of the equation. Since either side, those of theistic and atheistic evolution, is based on preexisting beliefs, neither needs to be taught, just evolution.
2: The government has no such responsibility. If you want children to learn their parents beliefs, then the parents should teach them, but by giving vouchers out, my taxes will go to pay for religious schools and that in itself is a governmental endorsement if religious institutions.

 

[Highlander]

So, you're willing to teach every version of creationism to your kids? That would be a really interesting science course. I think you fail to grasp the essential thing here. Creationism is not scientific THEORY, if you had taken a single college level course in any science field you would understand the difference between a theory and a belief.
Creationism is a BELIEF, not a theory. Which is why is should not be taught in a SCIENCE course but in study of comparative religion, which is taught at every university/college in America. If you want it added to the high school curriculum, than lobby the school board to add it to the general courses taught.

 

[keebs]

If the 'scientific' opinion is that it is about 50-50 (as you admitted) then that all the more enhances the legitimacy of teaching theories that are Creator-centred.

Actually, I believe it's around 72% atheistic, 7% believe in a personal God, and around 20% agnostic (the percentages are rounded).

 

[Free]

Highlander,

And yet you want to cram creationism down everyone's throat.

I fail to see how adding creationism to the current curriculum is cramming creationism down everyone's throat. Is it not the theory of evolution that is crammed down everyone's throat since it is the only one being taught?

 

[bibleberean]

Highlander,

And yet you want to cram creationism down everyone's throat.

I fail to see how adding creationism to the current curriculum is cramming creationism down everyone's throat. Is it not the theory of evolution that is crammed down everyone's throat since it is the only one being taught?

Amen! I fail to see the logic of allowing creationism to the curriculum can be construed as cramming it down anyones' throat.

After all... Evolutionists are open minded and tolerant of other ideas...

NOT!

 

[Scott]

But it's useless trying to quote Scripture to someone who considers it to be nothing more than myths and lies.

This begs the question, why are you here then?!

 

[sheseala]

Being from Wisconsin, this is surprising. Public schools are very good at teaching the concept where I'm from, though it isn't much until high school. Even in high school, it is just in biology, where it belongs really. The whole age thing was in earth science, and steller stuff was in astronomy. Boggles the mind, eh? Though to be honest, you can draw a line through the state where there is, um, a culture shift aka the hick zone. I'm from south of that line, the town in question is north.

I went to a religious private school for 1-8th grade, and had both theories presented, but in their proper place. Creation was taught in religion class and evolution was taught in science class.

Science wasn't even involved in the creation portion, just the "whole Bible says this interpret what you will" approach. The teacher also insisted that while all stories inthere are truth, only some may have actually happened.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

But it's useless trying to quote Scripture to someone who considers it to be nothing more than myths and lies.

This begs the question, why are you here then?!

To challenge your beliefs.

 

[Highlander]

Highlander,

And yet you want to cram creationism down everyone's throat.

I fail to see how adding creationism to the current curriculum is cramming creationism down everyone's throat. Is it not the theory of evolution that is crammed down everyone's throat since it is the only one being taught?

Well, how interesting that you only chose to answer one part of what I posted and ignored the rest. Adding it to the SCIENCE curriculum is ridiculous. Care to comment on the entirety of the post?

 

[Highlander]

But it's useless trying to quote Scripture to someone who considers it to be nothing more than myths and lies.

This begs the question, why are you here then?!

Whenever Christians don't like the challenge they receive they resort to this lame post. It's obvious that many of the Christians that post here have no words of their own, they are merely engaging in another form of cutting and pasting, using the bible to make their points, thereby proving that they are unable to engage in critical thinking, which is what the rest of us keep pointing out to them.

 

[Scott]

To you and your crony, I don't bother wasting my time debating with people who come to this forum so that they can cause arguments. I've read your posts.... enlightening no, combative yes. Really I do understand why you are here. Here you are a minority. Here your ideas are different. You are only escaping the fact that your ideas are the same as everyone elses in many other surroundings. In reality you are just copy of an imitation.

 

[Barbarian]

I would have thought in this day and age, there would be no more nimrods who figure evolution means that there could be no Creator.

I am always astonished at man's capacity for ignorance and self-delusion.

 

[mh13]

I must be one of those "nimrods". Evolution wouldn't rule out God, but it wouldn't be the God of the Bible. The bible would be untrustworthy

 

[keebs]

Evolution wouldn't rule out God, but it wouldn't be the God of the Bible. The bible would be untrustworthy

Why is this so? I don't see anything in the bible that rules out evolution...

 

[Barbarian]

I must be one of those "nimrods". Evolution wouldn't rule out God, but it wouldn't be the God of the Bible.

Most Christians would disagree with you on that.

The bible would be untrustworthy

Christians would disagree with you on that, too.