Evolution.. fact or not?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes. Your point? It does not say how, exactly he did this. It say he made Adam "from dust". So does evolution.

Yes, he made Adam from the dust according to the Bible. It's clearly inferred that this was a supernatural act and not a long drawn out process of development from other creatures. If there was some all powerful God then he wouldn't need to rely on a process, he could just do it. That's the point.

God did it. Why is is only to be wonderous if he went "poof" and there it all was? I see greater wonder in the sheer complexity and interrelation of it all. I am not saying you have to, but the Bible says only one thing. God did it. It does not say exactly how. Furthermore, the people to whom he spoke were not scientists.

It seems you're building an entire case of reasoning based on what's not in the Bible. Anyone can do that. Keep in mind that I'm not saying the Bible is true, but I at least know what it says.

I am not sure what you mean here. The Bible says some things. Other things are simply not in the Bible. When God was not clear or did not specify, then it was by intention. If the Bible does not specify then we have to look outside the Bible for answers. Too many people want to put things into the Bible that are simply not there. I NEVER simply trust what anyone says about the Bible ...at least not since I grew up, I have not. (and I definitely questioned what I learned earlier). I read it for myself. I am interested in other people's perspectives, but a lot of little old ladies have tried to tell me things that are simply not true. I smile and go on my own way. It seems you want to say that what you remember years ago has to be the valid truth. That may be fine for you, but it is not fine for me.

Who says change means the original was flawed? That is a judgement you are making. I simply look at what the Bible says, what science says. It was. Plain and simple. Whether you understand or I understand or jay understands why is completely irrelevant ... it simply was.

It is understood by Christians that God was perfect according to their Bible. A perfect God would not have to rely on a process of development for man to come about. The Bible says that God created man on day #6. It also says that every time he created something that he called it good. If it was not good then it would have to be flawed or not perfect. Whatever term you want to use. I am making a judgment based on what I've read. You're making a judgment based on something that's not even written.

You are trying to say that God has to operate on your understanding. IF you cannot see it, it must not be? Sorry, but that is not how anything works, particularly not religion.

A couple of answers. Firstly, the Bible is history of humankind and what affects us. All that existed before humans came into being is simply irrelevant. Dinosaurs did not cooexist with human beings (at least not T-Rex, etc...). So, they were simply not mentioned. Period.

But that's the whole point, isn't it. The Bible specifically says what existed before humans and on what day it, or they, started to exist. I'm afraid you're dodging this by saying it is irrelevant. I believe that we humans came from extremely primitive organisms that were acted upon by natural selection, and over time, developed into highly organized beings. But to try and deny that the Bible claims something totally different is just ridiculous.

Good think I don't have to please you then, isn't it!

Seriously, you claim to know a book that you don't follow and then tell me that your interpretation of this book you don't believe is better than my own interpretation of the book I very much follow and believe? I would say that one reason you don't believe is precisely because you have been incorrectly taught.

The bottom line is that you keep wanting to put narrow interpretations on words that are not specified. The Bible says God made Adam from dust.. so does Evolution. It just so happens that Evolution also puts an explanation for how it happened in between. The Bible is silent on that issue. The Bible simply says God did it.

Do a lot of people seem to think that could only mean "God went poof". Yes. A lot of people think a lot of things. I believe them wrong. Life goes on.

Firstly, in a true sense, I am a Creationist because I firmly believe that God created all. However, this group of conservative Christians, mainly with the lead of Dr Morris, have coopted the term to mean people who believe the Earth was created in6 24-hour periods and that it is between 6000 and 12000 years old.

That's fine. I'm an Evolutionist because I firmly believe that we've developed over millions of years because of observable evidence. It's not my field, but I trust those teachers who've shown me the evidence. I checked out what they presented with other sources, and I'm convinced they are correct. Darwin was probably wrong about some things but we have the basic structure of how it all happened.

Me too. And yes, Darwin was wrong about a lot. No question there. We have access to all sorts of information he did not. Scientific thinking progresses upon the shoulders of predecessors.

However, you continually mull over how it's terrible that GWB had 25% of his cabinet believing in creation science or how conservative christians push this stuff. That shows a true political bias on your part that is not scientific in any way. Bush never stopped me from believing in evolution and no conservative christian ever changed my mind, so it's not a danger that I fear any more than some Hindus telling me that some cow out in the field is my great grandfather reincarnated. I don't think we should be threatened by putting out both ideas. People are smart enough to check out whether or not something is true.

You are taking this completely out of context. My references to Bush are in response to mostly greek's comment that this doesn't affect him in any way. My point there is not that this has a direct (at least immediate) impact upon what people believe. In fact, I don't think most people were really aware that so many in his administration were Creationists. No, my point is that they had an obvious and direct influence on the president who most certainly used the information they presented to make some very bad decisions regarding science.

As for checking out both ideas. The problem is we are talking about children, not adults and children who need to learn science if we are going to have the kind of productive, advanced society that we need for the 21rst century. Creationism is putting us backwards right when we need to move forward more quickly than ever.

Finally, although I don't believe the Bible's account or creation, it's not like I don't recognize the huge difference between both beliefs. Trying to reconcile the Bible with evolution is just fruitless. It can't be done in my opinion. I respect that you're trying to reconcile the two so that it will make sense according to your own faith, but it's just justifying the unjustifiable to me. Owheelj explained it better than I did though.

I believe both. One is based on proof, the other is belief. I am not sure why you are trying to convince me otherwise, but I am firm on both counts.

[TheProwler]

Longer posts please.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, read Jones' last two posts. Do you really think that people who believe this sort of thing and ignore science are successful in life? Do you think those people are teaching public high school science? Do you think those people have any say in real life science? Of course not. That's why - mountain out of a mole hill.

Well, she's the one with kids at school where this is exactly the problem.
I don't know if Juan_Bottom is reading this, but he could tell you of being failed in science for opposing Creationism.

Okay, well that changes things. If people are being taught creationism in public school, that's a problem. If Juan Bottom was in private Christian school, well, that's how that stuff works unfortunately.

From what I understand, Juan was in public school.

As for your basic premise that these people have nothing to say about life sciences, you could not be more wrong. I am unemployed right now largely because people like you don't understand why it is important to really study our streams here in PA or maintain native fish instead of relying upon hatcheries. I definitely lay part of that at the hands of your teachers.

Creationism operates to harm in 2 ways. First, it creates a distrust of science in general. This leads students who are already slightly apathetic to completely throw up their hands (figuratively) when understanding science gets tough. Learning requires interest. No interest = learning is hard. Second, it causes parents and even teachers to be more accepting of these students who just are not interested in most of science. Or, if they are interested, then it encourages the parents to give them their information, which in turn builds more and more people who think that science shows that Evolution is wrong.

As for my son. He is not being taught Creationism directly. If he were, I would be going to court, not the principal. I don't know if his teacher is a Creationist or not. ( have suspicions, but that his all). What I know is that when I try to talk about the science curriculum at the school, I get a lot of people who say "what does it really matter anyway." And, there is a strange correlation between those voicing that opinion and attendance at a Creationist church. Not a 100% correlation, of course, but what seems to be a suspiciously large number of people.

[zebraman]

I believe both. One is based on proof, the other is belief. I am not sure why you are trying to convince me otherwise, but I am firm on both counts.

I was probably projecting my own beliefs into that post.

I'm glad you've found something that works for you

[thegreekdog]

My understanding is that monies that should be used for educational purposes are being wasted fighting legal battles to prevent creationism being taught as Science, this is not good. Texas , and perhaps other states, has legislated that Inteligent Design must be taught alongside Evolution with equal bias, this is unconstitutional as well as being not good.
The Creationists are throwing lots of money at the issue and many local authorities have neither the time,money or will to resist,this is not good. Educationalists in the USA are expressing fear that over time this dumbing down of Science education will impact on the countries ability to maintain a technological edge, this is not good.

Okay, yeah, that's not good. I was unaware that states had begun mandating the teaching of Creationism in science class. Here's why it's unconstitutional and why the Creationists won't win - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
Therefore, I'm not too worried about this.

As for your basic premise that these people have nothing to say about life sciences, you could not be more wrong. I am unemployed right now largely because people like you don't understand why it is important to really study our streams here in PA or maintain native fish instead of relying upon hatcheries. I definitely lay part of that at the hands of your teachers.

Creationism operates to harm in 2 ways. First, it creates a distrust of science in general. This leads students who are already slightly apathetic to completely throw up their hands (figuratively) when understanding science gets tough. Learning requires interest. No interest = learning is hard. Second, it causes parents and even teachers to be more accepting of these students who just are not interested in most of science. Or, if they are interested, then it encourages the parents to give them their information, which in turn builds more and more people who think that science shows that Evolution is wrong.

Player, I still don't see a direct correlation between religion and the lack of interest in science. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence in your post (i.e. your suspicious of the teacher and people in your community are Christian). If you asked a person why they aren't interested in science, I bet 1 in 10 (if that) would say "because it goes against God's teachings." If Creationism did not exist at all, do you really think people would be more interested in science? Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I know you are passionate about this issue, but I just can't get fired up about something when there are other and, in my mind, more important things to worry about than whether a failing wing of a failing political party is trying to unconstitutinoally have Creationism taught in schools. Things tha I think are more important that may have an effect on science - lower taxes for scientific ventures, more public funding for science, higher pay for teachers, board certification mandates for science teachers, public schools that teach (rather than baby sit). Getting people to stop talking about Creationism is the least of our worries.

[Juan_Bottom]

I was unaware that states had begun mandating the teaching of Creationism in science class.

Actually Creationism was taught in my public school. From 7th through 12th grade by our only science teacher. What he would do was teach what our science books said, and then contradict everything in them. He'd basically teach with this look--> on his face. Let me give you a real example. In Jr High he was giving a short lecture on Neanderthal and early man. He finished after about 10 minutes... and then went straight ahead with "scientists are distorting the facts because they want funding. Class, tell me where the money is at; is it in finding monkey bones or is it in finding early man bones?" Here are some more qoutes that I can remember:
"I had a friend from France too, he had an unusual face. A different kinda bone structure. I bet if some scientist found his bones they would say he was a Neanderthal too."
"And you know about the Neanderthal cave paintings? Well here is an interesting fact for you... did you know that they found Neanderthal cave paintings of people dressed in tuxedos? "
"I read an interesting article in National Geographic years ago. About a lost tribe in South America. The people trying to talk to them were using pictures to communicate. They started drawing pictures of animals. They drew a rabbit and a dog.... and do you know what they tribe drew? A picture of a Brontasaur."
I have pondered about what this has to do with GOD, but here are two other supernatural things he taught us:
"In S. America there is a temple on top of a mountain. The temple has stones too large to transport up there even with today's machines. But did you know that inside the temple there are paintings of rocket ships?"
"Did you know that inside the great pyramid there are rooms where food will never spoil?"
You shoulda heard some of his lectures... the one about the Chicago Experiment being false was particularly amazing... As where his lectures on Homosexuals and non-Christians. In case you are wodering, he hated them both.

So then it would come test time. What he would do is write out the test himself, full of questions from the chapter we had just gone over. But then he would add "bonus questions." The best example I can remember is "Why was the Java Man a fake?" And you were supposed to answer: "because his bones were found in a river bed miles apart and mixed with monkey bones." I can still remember this stuff... these are all from Jr High...
Anyway, as an Atheist, and a somewhat intelligent human being I had some real problems with him as a teacher... and as a person. I complained to our principle, and she called a parent-teacher conferance. My "science" teacher never even showed up. We went over my homework and my tests... but do you know what they told me? He had tenure... and the parents all liked him. 'Just do the work, tell him what he wants to hear, and forget about it.'
I failed every science class all through high school and had to take correspondance courses.

[thegreekdog]

Juan (and Player),

First and most importantly... wow, what a jackass teacher.

Second, while his teachings may have had to do with supernatural creation, it certainly did not have to do with traditional Creationism (at least based on what Juan typed here). Sounds more like the dude thinks aliens populated the earth and/or that scientists are distorting their findings for profit motives (rather than because they are creationists or strict evolutionists or some other non-money reason).

So, I don't find Juan's stories dispositive that Creationism is being taught in public schools.

[Juan_Bottom]

Good, I wasn't sure that you were still here.

So, I don't find Juan's stories dispositive that Creationism is being taught in public schools.

If Christians were KFC then he would be an Extra Crispy Christian with hot sauce.
He was a local leader of our biggest Church(like a village elder or something), and a huuuuge proponent of fanaticaly hardcore creationism. He also held bible studys in his room during lunch. And the Bible was always on his desk.

(rather than because they are creationists or strict evolutionists or some other non-money reason)

He believes in hardcore creationism, and that all the science contradicting that is made up for $$$. He believes that the Bible tells the true account of what happened, and that's what he taught. He did often mix the Bible with the "science" that he taught in class, I just don't see the need to get into that. I personally didn't understand the Brontasuar thing until like 10th grade, but I always wondered about it. I thought he was being mysterious and supernatural but then I realized that he was putting it forth as proof that people lived with dinosaurs. Which is something that he had also came out and said many times; "did you know that they found a man's femur in the belly of a T-Rex?" Which if he thought about it, doesn't make sense in a biblical way.

Yes, he does believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur to church. And that the earth has scientifically been proven to be 6000 years old. He also has a brilliant memory, and was constantly bringing up science from like the 40s 50s & 60s (he's an old-old man).

First and most importantly... wow, what a jackass teacher.

Karma won this battle though, since he later lost his legs. Only, he was all like "GOD gives us all challenges " and whatnot.

[thegreekdog]

I think this elucidates the problem with public school teachers generally more than the problem with Creationists specifically. Anecdotal evidence aside, are you versed enough in the sciences to understand the basics of evolution or are you a Creationist because of this nutcase teacher? I ask because the risk posited by Player and others seems to dictate that if you're taught by a Creationist, you will become a Creationist. I want to see if you have succumbed to that risk.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think this elucidates the problem with public school teachers generally more than the problem with Creationists specifically. Anecdotal evidence aside, are you versed enough in the sciences to understand the basics of evolution or are you a Creationist because of this nutcase teacher? I ask because the risk posited by Player and others seems to dictate that if you're taught by a Creationist, you will become a Creationist. I want to see if you have succumbed to that risk.

This is the "honest to God truth." I am not a Creationist. I am obviously an Atheist, I founded the GH. There were 2 other "non-Christians" in my class of 40, and we all failed his classes while trying very hard. Of the other two, one is also an Atheist, and one is a Jehovah's Witness. The JW's parents moved her to another school because of this.

But of the other 38 kids, I know that at least 18 of them did become/were creationist. I don't doubt that the number is much higher. In fact, I know for a fact that he converted my cousin to his way of thinking. And she was a really smart girl. There were only 4 of us that never went to his Bible studies. It was like a big joke to everyone back in the day.

And it is of course true that if you are taught to think one way you will grow up that way. Some people will break free from the conditioning, but most wont. There are infinity examples around the globe. Look at the differences between countries. Or how kids grow up to be like their parents.

[thegreekdog]

To preface, I was not nor am I trying to be currently, a smartass about this. I'm genuinely concerned that the angst generated against Creationists is directed at the wrong group of people. In any event, of the 18 who did become/were Creationist, apart from your cousin, were they directly converted by this teacher? In other words, were those 18 people part of non-Christian families who were converted purely because of the teachings of one particular person in a science class in high school? If so, did these peoples' families have any influence at all? Did these people go to college? I don't expect you to know the answers to these questions, but I think directing animonsity towards the Creationists in general is not a productive exercise. Directing animosity towards that particular teach is, however, a productive exercise and I would encourage it.

Speaking from personal experience, ignoring the fact that I am a practicing Roman Catholic, I went to public high school in a region dominated (and I mean dominated) by Christian conservatives. I do not know any teacher who taught Creationism or a science teacher who did not teach evolution. Now, I graduated in the late 1990s so it may have changed since then, but I doubt it. None of my friends became Creationists or were "converted" to non-Creationists based on what they learned or did not learn in high school. So, my personal experience was much different than yours, although I would posit that the risk (namely that I lived in an area dominated by Christian conservatives) was the same.

[Juan_Bottom]

but I think directing animonsity towards the Creationists in general is not a productive exercise. Directing animosity towards that particular teach is, however, a productive exercise and I would encourage it.

Hey, firstly, I am an Atheist... I think all Creationists are dumb.
Secondly, I am not projecting animosity towards anyone for what he did. Save the other teachers and principle who allowed it.

None of my friends became Creationists or were "converted" to non-Creationists based on what they learned or did not learn in high school.

I think the problem was that the community as a whole supported him. That's why my protests went unheard.
But he did teach science to a VERY impressionable group for 6 years. No doubt most of my class were already Christian, but I cannot believe that none or few of them were impressed by him. Certainly he got a few of us... namely my cousin who was already Christian, but too young to already have her mind made up about anything.

[thegreekdog]

The point of this thread is that science in the United States suffers largely because of Creationists. Do you think that Creationism and its spread is the cause of the apparent lack of science prowess in the US? Player thinks Creationism is the major reason (per her first post). I think Creationism is not in the top 10 for reasons.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that people don't listen. Or care.

Compare creationism with the view that he world was flate in the 1600s. Most people thought the world was flat, but the smarties all knew how stupid that was.

As for the correlation between lack of scientific understanding or education, well hardcore creationists are idiots... I don't know though how many Americans are today creationist. I do know that 16% of Americans want nothing to do with religion, and that 93% of all National Academy of Science's (or whatever it is) scientists do not believe in God. So there is obviously some kind of connection?

[thegreekdog]

I think that people don't listen. Or care.

Compare creationism with the view that he world was flate in the 1600s. Most people thought the world was flat, but the smarties all knew how stupid that was.

As for the correlation between lack of scientific understanding or education, well hardcore creationists are idiots... I don't know though how many Americans are today creationist. I do know that 16% of Americans want nothing to do with religion, and that 93% of all National Academy of Science's (or whatever it is) scientists do not believe in God. So there is obviously some kind of connection?

That's not really an answer. Here are two statements, one of which is in agreement with me, and one of which is in agreement with Player. Do you agree with the first or the second:

(1) Creationism, specifically its spread and the Creationist agenda of teaching this "science" in public schools, is the most significant factor in the lack of understanding of Americans vis-a-vis science, especially physical sciences and evolution. Creationism is spreading such that science is in danger from the religious.
(2) Creationism is not a significant factor in the lack of understanding of Americans vis-a-vis science. Further, Creationism is constitutionally not permitted to be taught in school (per the Supreme Court decision cited above). Still further, religion no longer has a substantial effect on science in any event.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's not really an answer. Here are two statements, one of which is in agreement with me, and one of which is in agreement with Player. Do you agree with the first or the second:

No, you didn't like my answer. I agree more with Player than I do with you. But I don't agree exactly with either statement. People teach other people to be ignorant. The trouble is that some of these people are the nicest people on earth. And completly rational about everything but religious view.

Religion does have a significant effect on the spread and understanding of true science. It makes the whole affair an uphill battle. Though again of course I am speaking in generalizations.

[thegreekdog]

No, you didn't like my answer.

I loved your answer. It just didn't answer my question, it answered some other question regarding religion not having a place in science. Which, like I said, I love and agree with.

I completely and 100% agree with your answer, not the least of the reasons being that it proves my point. If 93% of the National Academy of Science's members are not religious, what effect does religion have on science? 7% effect? That's not significant.

Religion does have a significant effect on the spread and understanding of true science. It makes the whole affair an uphill battle. Though again of course I am speaking in generalizations.

Hmm... like Player I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Does it make science an uphill battle? Sure, but the hill is at a 1% elevation relative to religion. 50% of the elevation is the general lack of interest in science. 40% of the elevation is related to the horrendous state of public schools. The remaining 9% is due to a lack of funding for science.

In the 1600s was religion a significant impediment to science? Yep. It's not anymore. The next time a law is passed or a decision made by a scientist or policy-make based on religion, I'll be shocked. In any event, I would like you and Player (mostly Player) to consider redirecting your energy that you have been expending on attacking Creationism's effect on science and use that energy to address the lack of interest in science, the state of public schools and teachers, and the lack of funding; which, to my mind, are much more significant than some wackjobs in a backroom somewhere getting mad about evolution.

[Juan_Bottom]

If 93% of the National Academy of Science's members are not religious, what effect does religion have on science? 7% effect? That's not significant.

Well what if there are only 20 members of the NAS but 6 million members of the Lutheran Church? And another 1 million Methodists. And 4 million Catholics... and 4 millian Protestants... and 1 millian Jews... ect ect.... it's a whole new relative view. That makes it like a 20 bajillian-% effect.

40% of the elevation is related to the horrendous state of public schools.

I'll give you that. But whever there is a bad school... there is also a church. Probably 20 of them...

The remaining 9% is due to a lack of funding for science.

You know who does have big funding though? Jesus... that's who.

I think you and Player both have the same thought here. And that is that education is poorly funded and even executed, but at the same time religion suffers no shortage of manpower or $$$. But your conclusions are differen't.

The next time a law is passed or a decision made by a scientist or policy-make based on religion, I'll be shocked.

There was a federal judge in Georgia(?) I believe who was just removed from office after stating that the 10 Comandments had standing in his court. No word however on whether or not there would e re-trials ofr everyonehe convicted or let go... I linked the story here somewhere in a thread like a month ago.

I would like you and Player (mostly Player) to consider redirecting your energy that you have been expending on attacking Creationism's effect on science and use that energy to address the lack of interest in science, the state of public schools and teachers, and the lack of funding; which, to my mind, are much more significant than some wackjobs in a backroom somewhere getting mad about evolution.

Hold up now, I will always stand up to meet those who would perpetuate stupid and downright false information. That goes double for those who do it for a GOD, since I am an Atheist. But in general I favor a sizable government budget cuts and boost for public education. It's not right that for schools to do anything they have to raise community taxes or hold 20 bake sales. My 8 year old cousin has the same science book that I had when I was her age and I am 23. That book was old when I got there. I remember my Senior English book was from 1985. A full year before I was born... our principle said that good grammer doesn't change. So please don't misunderstand my position.

[thegreekdog]

I gotta log off, but I'll post briefly.

I pretty much agree with every single thing you typed in your previous post addressing what I typed. And I agree that Creationism has an effect, I just think it's insignificant compared to others and I certainly wouldn't waste my own time and energy on combatting something that has no significant effect on education. The point of my suggestion to you and Player was to get you and Player to admit that there are worse problems that Creationism with respect to science. Since you've done that, and I agree with everything else you've said, we're cool.

On the other hand, you throw a lot of information on churches and religions out there. Okay, fine, churches have loads of loot, there are a lot of them, a lot of people practice religion... none of these things address the question. I'll take your previous post as an indication that you aren't a big fan of religion, which may have been your point. I'm not a big fan of religion either, just my own. And I don't impose my own religion on others, so... it is what it is.

[Juan_Bottom]

I just hate to say "no" or "yes" to everything. "Show your work."

[owheelj]

The next time a law is passed or a decision made by a scientist or policy-make based on religion, I'll be shocked.

What reasons are there for gay marriage to not be legal that are not religious?

[PLAYER57832]

The point of this thread is that science in the United States suffers largely because of Creationists. Do you think that Creationism and its spread is the cause of the apparent lack of science prowess in the US? Player thinks Creationism is the major reason (per her first post). I think Creationism is not in the top 10 for reasons.

First, I am having computer issues, so please excuse misspellings.

Second, let me step back a bit because apparently I have not been as clear as I ought.

I think one of the biggest problems in our country right now is poor science education, particularly understanding the natural world and how we relate (includeing agriculture, etc.). Its not the biggest (the mortgage crisis, etc are certainly more immediate, Iraq and Afghanistan are up there, etc.) However, for me, in my life today, it is one that I can do more about than the others. I cannot fix people's mortgages. I cannot end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can teach my neighbors to garden better and I can work to try to improve my son's school and perhaps some others.

Anything that takes away from real science is a problem. Apathy and plain lack of understanding by adults (who cannot, in turn, teach what they don't know) are the biggest problems in science education. However, right behind that is Creationism. Also, if it were not for the first 2 Creationism could not take hold and when Creationism takes hold, the other 2 get worse. And, though I know I sound like a conspiracist, it is a movement that is growing quickly, but silently, mostly behind closed doors. They know that Evolution is the popular view. They see everyone else as out to condemn Christianity. We are the sheep being led by a wolf and they are the shepards who must eventually steer us all back to safety.

In addition, as a part of this or related to this, I am beginning to question our attitudes about home schooling. Every child deserves a good education. Learning that evolution was just a theory some scientist cooked up to disprove Christianity just is not good education. Its complicated, though. Freedom of religion is one of our most fundamental value. I would say the most fundamental value of our country. So, basically, the line I draw is that kids need to learn science. REAL science. based on real facts and proofs. They need to understand what that means.

It does not bother me so m uch that Widomakers or jay or anyone else believes Creationism, what bothers me is that they do so thinking they know real science....but they have not a clue.

And it bothers me that so many others out there also kn ow so little about science, whether they believe in Evolution or not.

[thegreekdog]

The next time a law is passed or a decision made by a scientist or policy-make based on religion, I'll be shocked.

What reasons are there for gay marriage to not be legal that are not religious?

Agreed. Not really relevant to this particular thread, but I 100% agree that there are no reasons for gay marriage to be illegal except for religious reasons.

[thegreekdog]

And it bothers me that so many others out there also kn ow so little about science, whether they believe in Evolution or not.

I was wondering where you were Player.

Yeah, I agree with that statement in total. The people I know that know little about science (myself included) rarely will cite religion, but it bothers me that colleges in the US graduate so few engineers, mathemeticians, scientists, etc. I heard yesterday on the radio in an interview with PA's governor that for the first time in history, more foreign nationals applied for US patents than US citizens. I also heard that South Korea graduates the same number of engineers as the US and South Korea has 1/6th of our population. Now, I'm not a good example because I'm a lawyer (a word scientist so to speak); but I think that math and science need to be better taught in our schools (along with English grammar... but that's my own white whale). I just don't think that if Creationism goes away that means any kind of public education for science will improve in a significant manner.

This is something I should have thought of before, but I was stuck on thinking about rural Pennsyltucky schools. I don't think Creationism has anything to do with the state of science in Philadelphia public high schools, for example. I think students in Catholic schools in Philly get a better science education (that includes evolution by the way) than students in Philadelphia public high schools. In other words, the state of science education in Philadelphia (and the suburbs) has NOTHING to do with Creationism. Maybe that will convince you guys. So, think about it this way - do you think science in public schools IN PHILADELPHIA AND SUBURBS will improve in any significant (or even insignificant) manner if Creationism goes away? I sure don't think so.

[PLAYER57832]

And it bothers me that so many others out there also kn ow so little about science, whether they believe in Evolution or not.

I was wondering where you were Player.

Yeah, I agree with that statement in total. The people I know that know little about science (myself included) rarely will cite religion, but it bothers me that colleges in the US graduate so few engineers, mathemeticians, scientists, etc. I heard yesterday on the radio in an interview with PA's governor that for the first time in history, more foreign nationals applied for US patents than US citizens. I also heard that South Korea graduates the same number of engineers as the US and South Korea has 1/6th of our population. Now, I'm not a good example because I'm a lawyer (a word scientist so to speak); but I think that math and science need to be better taught in our schools (along with English grammar... but that's my own white whale). I just don't think that if Creationism goes away that means any kind of public education for science will improve in a significant manner.

This is something I should have thought of before, but I was stuck on thinking about rural Pennsyltucky schools. I don't think Creationism has anything to do with the state of science in Philadelphia public high schools, for example. I think students in Catholic schools in Philly get a better science education (that includes evolution by the way) than students in Philadelphia public high schools. In other words, the state of science education in Philadelphia (and the suburbs) has NOTHING to do with Creationism. Maybe that will convince you guys. So, think about it this way - do you think science in public schools IN PHILADELPHIA AND SUBURBS will improve in any significant (or even insignificant) manner if Creationism goes away? I sure don't think so.

(still having computer issues..)
I don't see the issue in the same framework as you.


Creationism IS very much in Phladephia. I am sure it is a bigger issue in many smalll towns, but it is everwhere A huge conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh drew thousands, as many as anylarge conference anywhere.

My point is that by the time you actually see Creationism in public schools, the battle has already been largely lost. Other than a few isolated "stabs", you won't even notice the level of Creationism teachings until suddenly they are there, en masse before the schoool board. Sure, that happens first in rural areas, but those rural areas dictate as much as anyonewhat is taught in state textbooks, et


Second, this is not about doing awa with Creationism or any other thought. It is about ensuring that kids know the differeence between real science and fake science, INCLUDEIing Creationism, but also many other things.

Finally, this is an issue each and every one o u can help fix in small ways,.

As for English... that, too is a huge issu. However, I would not put them sepeaate, P The biggest part of science is really effective communication..