church & state in the US

Sesshoumaru

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1346678,00.html

Won't be long over there before they start teaching the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth! :rolleyes:

ixoy

*gah* Creatonism, being a belief, has no place in any science teachings which are based on theories and laws that have empirical evidence, or credence, to them.

Firstly, it's called the Theory of Evolution. That alone should be enough to placate them - it's not the Law of evolution. There's a reason why we say "theory" instead of "law" in science. Theory is used when the evidence seems to overwhelming suggest something - in this case Darwinian evolution - and so, in the evidence of anything contradicting it, we use this as our model. Now Creationism has no evidence to back it and thus it should not be used in any shape or form when teaching science. Fine, teach it in religion class (where it should have its own warning) but to try and bring it into science ridicules the whole practice of scientific theory.

aidan_walsh

And Wisconsin wants to add Creationism to the science curriculum.

The biggest problem this is going to pose is exactly the problem seperating Church and State was intended to resolve; Whose creationist story are you going to teach? How do you favour one religion over another?

Hobbes

I have no problem with this as long as ...

1. It is put forward as the "Theory of Creationism".
2. Students are allowed research and question it.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism generally isn't touted as such. It is touted as a fact and anything which might throw that fact out of whack is dismissed. Where as evolution if there were ever proof that some almighty or alien race created the planet then scientists are generally willing to change their point of view (dam flipfloppers).

I wonder if God ever appeared and said "Listen lads, Darwin was right I have no idea what that person was thinking when they wrote the bible but it wasn't me". Would they stop believing in God?

Phil_321

Man, don't you just hate religion. What a pile of crap.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sesshoumaru

Hobbes wrote:

I have no problem with this as long as ...

1. It is put forward as the "Theory of Creationism".
2. Students are allowed research and question it.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism generally isn't touted as such. It is touted as a fact and anything which might throw that fact out of whack is dismissed. Where as evolution if there were ever proof that some almighty or alien race created the planet then scientists are generally willing to change their point of view (dam flipfloppers).

I wonder if God ever appeared and said "Listen lads, Darwin was right I have no idea what that person was thinking when they wrote the bible but it wasn't me". Would they stop believing in God?

I would still have a problem with this even if it is put forward as a theory.

If you are going to teach kids a theory on where we came from then it should at least have some empirical proof behind it. What proof if any do we have for the creation theory? the bible? some guy wearing a pointy hat in Rome says its so? It seems like a waste of resources and time to me. Let the churches teach people about creation if they want to and let the schools teach the real science.

pork99

It's indicative again that the US seems to be turning into 2 countries (this has been covered in other threads).

"Evolution is a scientific fact"-land:
One country is the North East coastal states, the states around the Great Lakes and the West Coast. These are the more urban and urbane states, have the best universities, the high-tech industries and are net contributers of tax revenue. They tend to vote Democrat.

"Ain't no monkey is my grandpa"-land:
The other country is the central prairie states and South Eastern "Bible-Belt" states (aka "the Axis of Ignorance"). These tend to be the low income, low educational achievement states, net recipients of Federal funds. They tend to vote Republican*

*and the highest income classes. Ironically core Republican support seems to come from the richest and the poorest in US society.

Hobbes

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. There is a difference.

pork99

Hobbes wrote:

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. There is a difference.

Ok, but it is a theory backed up with a lot of empirical evidence

whereas creationism is a theory backed up by a lot of er, made up evidence

ixoy

pork99 wrote:

Ok, but it is a theory backed up with a lot of empirical evidence

whereas creationism is a theory backed up by a lot of er, made up evidence

Precisely, completely agree with you. I pointed out in my own post above. A theory is accepted until other evidence invalidates it. Observing what we have, the theory of Darwinian evolution fits. There is a series of events that lend credence to it, as well as other items like fossils, legacy DNA, etc.

Creatonism, on the other hand, has nothing to back it up that can be even observed, or tested, by scientific methodology. Saying the earth is only a few thousand years old is easily disproven by a few moments with a geologist and their lab equipment. Physics can teach us that certain elements of the earth's body were in flux for aeons before settling - and not a couple of days, etc.

Given that Darwinian theory has something behind it, and Creationism doesn't, I can't see how you can validly argue that Creatonism should be taught as a science. Regardless of whether or not you want to say Darwinism is a theory, you should not be placing Creatonism on any sort of level plane - scientifically - unless you're willing to provide scientific evidence. Otherwise, keep it in the religious texts.

aidan_walsh

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As far as I recall the last time someone started a thread about removing the Angelus from the state broadcaster, there were many voices in opposition to it. So it seems to me that a better conversation would be about the US backtracking of their centuaries old principal.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

But I do see David Norris fighting on towards the recognition of same sex couples, as well as unmarried couples. And, IMO, fighting for a common cause where he could have only concentrated on his own interests is something the man should be championed for.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Referendums say the people don't want it, and it hasn't become enough of an issue to warrent another one.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They should be more liberal? The US only has liberal pornography laws because it is covered by the right to free speech.

swiss

I also wouldn't mind if this was taught in the educational system under conditions similar to those proposed by Hobbes. Once children understand that Darwinism and the theory of evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory that explains the origin of man and that Creationism is not, I don't have a problem with them learning that Christian teachings state that man was modelled on the Christian deity. If we wish to complete their education on speciation, we could include teachings on orthogenesis and Lamarckism, as well as other relevant religious teachings, say from Islam or Buddhism.

I suspect, however, that this is not what the religious advocates pushing for the adoption of bible teachings have in mind.

Hobbes

ixoy wrote:

There is a series of events that lend credence to it, as well as other items like fossils, legacy DNA, etc.

Which were clearly put there by God.

Creatonism, on the other hand, has nothing to back it up that can be even observed, or tested, by scientific methodology. Saying the earth is only a few thousand years old is easily disproven by a few moments with a geologist and their lab equipment. Physics can teach us that certain elements of the earth's body were in flux for aeons before settling - and not a couple of days, etc.

Again God could easily do this as he can do anything so you haven't disproved it.

* This is the kind of argument against it (actually must go read up some more on what arguments they use).

Actually I don't see why they don't just have a general religeon class in the US schools. Have it teach all faiths, and let the kids sort it out for themselves.

mycroft

Hobbes wrote:

I have no problem with this as long as ...

1. It is put forward as the "Theory of Creationism".
2. Students are allowed research and question it.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism generally isn't touted as such. It is touted as a fact and anything which might throw that fact out of whack is dismissed. Where as evolution if there were ever proof that some almighty or alien race created the planet then scientists are generally willing to change their point of view (dam flipfloppers).

But hobbes we should be teaching students to rationally and imperically look at the facts and come to a decision based on the conclusion presented to them.

Creationism has no evidence to support it and until they flip a continent over and find "made in heaven" stamped on the rear end it they dont have it and evidence other than "cause I say so"

Furthermore teaching in school will validate the believe because it's coming from an accepted authority figure (a teacher) and is being taught alongside maths and science.

Finally it's a blind belief and to follow this conclusion you're then opening the doors to everyone who claims things like "I believe the world is flat" and "moonlandings were filmed in LA" group.

bobbyjoe

Here's a creationism faq for anyone who's interested.
Notice it written in a defensive style.
Reckons mankind is 6,000 years old!
Creationism
Would have been cool seeing the dinasours though.

aidan_walsh

Hobbes wrote:

Actually I don't see why they don't just have a general religeon class in the US schools. Have it teach all faiths, and let the kids sort it out for themselves.

Because of freedom of speech. I could start a cult in the morning and demand that the US curriculum preach my teachings if thats the way it was. As well as that, there simply would be insufficient time to cover any of them with any great depth.

This is the very reason behind Sunday Schools. One faith uses the time allowed by the church-going parents to educate their children in the ways of their church.

ixoy

Hobbes wrote:

Again God could easily do this as he can do anything so you haven't disproved it.

Actually I don't see why they don't just have a general religeon class in the US schools. Have it teach all faiths, and let the kids sort it out for themselves.

Aye, of course. By that rationale it's impossible to ever disprove any argument because God, being the Supreme Being, is above any laws that govern us (given He created them) and therefore their argument will, to them, always be more valid. And of course you don't need to have proof, because that's what Faith is about - right? *gah*

Religion class seems to be the place for this and they don't have it do they? Odd, given God's place in their oath of alleigance and so forth. I mean I could say that they want to respect other people's beliefs systems in these states pushing this agenda forth, but this isn't Rec - Humour so I won't.

mycroft

from the creationist faq website

The largest dragon (i.e. dinosaur) eggs that we've found to date are about the size of a football. One could fit, for example, a dozen brachiosaurus eggs in the trunk of a car, with room to spare! This also means that recently hatched dragons were not very large. Noah's mission was to preserve each kind of animal. You don't need to find the biggest of each kind. And you don't need each sub-divided species either. Did you know that most modern dog breeds are less than 100 years old? 2 healthy young mutts could preserve the genome of the entire "dog kind" of animals. The Bible uses the word "kind" for the different types of life forms. Horses and zebras can (and have) physically mated producing viable offspring; so have tigers and lions, indicating that they (according to creation theory) probably respectively diverged from the same original stock. Dogs and wolves (though considered quite different by humans today) probably originated from their same "kind" too. There are a few large animals (when fully grown) of course: giraffes, elephants, and T-rexes among them. But the average animal size is about sheep size, i.e. the 3-story Ark was plenty large enough to handle the variety of animal kinds plus lots of food for them. Speciation could descend again from original healthy "mutt" stock to start with. Thinking scientifically about this, it shows incredible variable design, huh?

Well I'm convinced

bobbyjoe

Even the numbers add up it must be true.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.

Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space). "

Sleepy

If there ever was a God, he's no doubt blown his brains out after watching these muppets.

mycroft

Sleepy wrote:

If there ever was a God, he's no doubt blown his brains out after watching these muppets.

he?

Hobbes

doodle_sketch wrote:

Because of freedom of speech. I could start a cult in the morning and demand that the US curriculum preach my teachings if thats the way it was. As well as that, there simply would be insufficient time to cover any of them with any great depth.

Whats the saying? God is a diamond and each religon sees a facat of that diamond.

It doesn't have to cover them in depth. Only enough to give a general idea of what religons are and what they stand for, and then the student can research more. I certainly remember from religon classes in my secondary school they had walk ins from protestant, Jewish and Muslim giving a general overview of the religon. They even covered cults and how they work. The class even went into how Irish mythology was interwoven with the Catholic church to get more people into the faith. It also covered the lesser shiny times of the church (inquestition, paying for sins, etc), another religons the church frowns a bit on (eg. Wicca/Paganism).

They just need to call the class something other then religon and not focus on just Christanity.

But as mentioned this is unlikely based on the fundies.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

But hobbes we should be teaching students to rationally and imperically look at the facts and come to a decision based on the conclusion presented to them.

<crazytalk>
Why?

Thats just science-speak. You're deciding what is the right way to teach, based on what you already believe is most correct.

Besides, there's nothing more rationally than looking at everything as the creation of Our Almighty Lord God, and understanding how he put it there in accordance with The Great Book.
</crazytalk>

You can't win. Its been tried, and you just can't win. Its like banging your head off a brick wall - the only reason to do it is because it feels so good when you stop.

jc