"as the creationists are now attempting. Despite every court case having been decided against them, creationists still are attempting to force school boards to teach creationism as fact in science classes." -usherpoo
No no, you got that wrong. Evolutionists are attempting to force school boards to teach large scale evolution and abiogenesis as fact in science classes. You got your religions mixed up. Creationists simply want acknowledgement, as well as modesty from those who teach science to confront the fact that they really, truly, do not have facts in evolution in how its taught, and that it certainly does not rule out theories that contradict large scale evolution and abiogenesis, regardless of whether those theories are scientific or not. At some point, science has to stop being taught as the "end all and be all" of fact and truth.
"If parents want their kids to believe in Creationism, then THEY should tell their kids about it or send them to a private school that does. In PUBLIC schools, EVOLUTION should be taught based on scientific evidence."
Better yet if a parent wanting their offspring to be taught things like creationism would be charged with child abuse ;) To force young impressionable minds in believing mythology should not be allowed. If an adult wishes to believe in garden faeryes, fine by me but children should not be used as means to spread ideology.
I agree with saab93f. No parent (or anyone else) should be allowed to teach religion to a child. It's like those horrible documentaries we see about white supremacists who teach their young children to hate non-whites. The sight of a 5-year-old giving a "Heil Hitler" salute is every bit as disturbing as a 5-year-old clasping his or her hands in prayer. Unfortunately, young children almost always believe what their parents tell them, and they often carry these beliefs into adulthood. If children were not allowed to hear about religion until they turned 18 (or better yet, 21) they would undoubtedly laugh out loud when someone tried to fill them with the silly myths of parting seas, burning bushes and virgins giving birth.
Question to believers: If the universe is only 6000 years old, how do you explain the existence of Joan Rivers?
You convincingly made a few white lies in your statements. You said in science you are taught that science is fact just like in religion classes you are taught about religion. That statement, alone, just made a double standard. The CORRECT (or at least modest) way to make that statement would have been like this:
In science you are taught the methodologies of science, and the speculative results. Those results may be driven by facts or potential evidence, but the conclusions themselves are not facts. In addition, because some scientists absolutely refuse to accept alternative answers due to lack of scientific fact for those answers, those scientists will claim that that alternative answer is, and must be, false. In other words, the unknown and unclarified becomes the false. This is the biggest farce of science. So science class, like a religion studies class, will provide you the "best explanation" according to that branches' understandings, which may or may not completely ignore the studies of other branches. Lately, religion studies classes have been much more open to evidence from other philosophical branches, whereas those who are hardcore scientists and naturalists often deny any other branch its validity.
A modest and wise scientist will always say "This is the best explanation science can give if ONLY scientific evidence is ever considered for a possible answer. There are certainly viable, experiential, evidential alternative answers that do not come as the highest suggestion of science, and science is certainly not the end all and be all of conclusive truths in this world."
Anyone else is selling something.
Anyone else is selling something.
It is commonly accepted that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and I think it also likely to be true – frequently – that “offense is in the eye of the beholder”. It is also a commonplace (176 Google links though I haven’t been able to find the original source) that “honest men (and women) may disagree” and as much as I agree with most (all?) of your posts [paraphrasing W.C. Fields, anyone who thinks physics is fun can’t be all bad] I think it might be the case that “methinks thou doth protest too much”.
On the other side of the coin I think that, obviously and fortunately, most agree that it is much more effective to believe [quote / unquote: whatever it is we mean by the term] in the facts of biology and astronomy (for example) to gauge the best time to plant crops than to believe that sacrificing some virgins or captives or our first born will ensure that we have bread on the table tomorrow.
I remember reading a short story of Mark Twain’s [Shania’s great-uncle] about Tom Sawyer [probably] in which he thought he would put God to the test by saying that he would close his eyes and wave his hands about and if , perchance, he wound up with a piece of chocolate cake therein then there would, ipso facto, be a God. As there was another student at the next desk who made the necessary sacrifice of their [plural and singular: pay the word extra and have done with his / her] dessert, Tom concluded that there was in fact a God. Being somewhat greedy he thought to reprise his challenge which, of course, failed to yield the expected manna so, ergo, no God. Obviously, in Twain’s time as in our own, a great number of people seem to come at the issue from a similar perspective – understandably so I think.
A number of related threads on this topic have discussed the possibility of a debate to which I might suggest (though not being fully familiar with the Marquis of Queensbury rules for debating): “Be it resolved that ‘God’ is a hypothesis”. At the very least it might clear the air or define exactly what we mean by the concept. Very much reminds me of the parable of the half-dozen blind men who grabbed various parts of an elephant and, on the basis of very limited information, proceeded to argue vociferously and contrarily and futilely on the true nature (some being more skeptical than the others, even of the existence) of “elephant”.
Thanks muchly though I also, periodically, have a tendency to, as the phrase goes, only open my mouth to change feet. And in which regard it seems that I have said something in an earlier post [#10] in this thread that has presumably been reported and deleted as a violation.
I have endeavored to obtain feedback from ABC on the protocol and process and consequences of reporting violations but, as nothing has been forthcoming, I thought I would ask whether you or anyone else here has such information.
It seems reasonable and only a minor irritation that the stray word that might be considered profane or have sexual connotations is replaced (probably automatically) with a set of asterisks or pound signs – even if the context doesn’t warrant it. However, to have a post deleted without any indication as to why or which phrase got someone’s “knickers-in-a-twist” or without providing the poster the opportunity to, say for example, choose a less emotionally charged phrase or word smacks of out-right censorship that would seem to be far more consistent with repressive regimes like Iran or China.
Obviously, ABC has the right (and probably the responsibility) to moderate these discussions so we don’t wind up with runaway chain reactions and a Chernobyl to deal with – figuratively speaking. However, as a point of reference, the leading question from ABC for all of the threads in this group was “Are atheists fanning the flames a little too hard -- or exercising their right to speak their minds?” Consequently, it seems most illogical (to coin a phrase) to provide a forum for and open the very necessary discussion on the nature and scope of both religion and science in society and then to deny anyone the opportunity to do so – subject, of course, to reasonable rules of order. And, also of course, I had thought that I had provided a reasonably cogent summary (to the best of my abilities, such as they are) of a number of ideas and perspectives on the topic and had (as I am accustomed to do) buttressed my arguments with quotes (relevant or not) from various recognized authorities; I certainly hadn’t thought I had crossed that line – I guess that, frequently, “the eye of the beholder” is everything.
Anyway, I expect that most are aware of the webcast (post by usherpoo) tomorrow on the topic of Darwin and Creationism – looking forward to seeing it and reading the book. Anyone who can present an argument “that science and religion offer different, but compatible [?] ways of viewing the world” is going to get my attention. There was a writer of some years ago, Phillip Wylie [Essay on Morals, Generation of Vipers], no fellow-traveler of religious zealots, who argued that the Bible contained much that was “profound psychology and exquisite logic”. I think that if we can get over the hurdle of the thinking that the Bible is the literal word of God we might have a reasonable chance to separate the wheat from the chaff - another big step for Mankind towards that synthesis.