God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I haven't been able to read all 26 pages of this thread, but I feel I have a few things that could add to this discussion...

The theory of evolution does not need to contradict religion, be it Christian or otherwise. Literalist adherents to a philosophy may disagree, but most have no problem reconciling the two. However, recent (Scientific!) studies have confirmed that proposing intelligent design as a viable option is not scientifically preposterous.

We have been able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe, and in doing so realized how unlikely it would be for us to even exist. During the big bang, if the mass of the universe had been 'off' one direction or another by 0.000...6% (60 zeros before the 6) we would have either had too much mass, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or we wouldn't have had enough mass for the energy to slow down enough to form into planets and stars and such. A cosmic calculation that is so finely tuned for producing not just life, but matter at all, suggests some higher intervention...which doesn't necesarily endorse any one religion, but certainly isn't at odds with many religions.

Attempts have also been made to determine the probability of life forming as it exists on Earth. Any studies done in this field all suggest that the universe hasn't been around for long enough to reasonably assume that even simple single-celled organisms and strains of amino acids should have been able to form...let alone complex organisms and creatures as complicated as human beings. Such complexification of life over a relatively short amount of time (even though billions of years seems long to us) blatently suggests some sort of intelligent design.

If need be, I can produce more specific examples of where I am getting this data from. But that is mostly just to let you know that I'm not making these things up and have researched this before speaking on it. I'm not a Christian, but neither do I fully ignore the possibilities within Christianity simply because science, on the surface, seems to contradict religious beliefs. Intelligent design can be taught in an unbiased fashion...we simply, too often, wish to ascribe a set of beliefs to the discussion that have nothing to do with the original intent of the instruction.

...just my 3 cents.

Very well written Digimark. I still believe that evolution contradicts Religion in many ways,however, your points were well thought out none the less. Much props..

Originally posted by yerssot

I'm sorry, but no, they aren't. Since when is a government in the position to dictate when something is a religion and when it's a religion?
If you want an answer, ask the Dalai Lama, and only him. HE is the authority since he's the leader of this movement. He'll assure you that he is not leading a religion at all... but then again, you'll just laugh at him and say you don't believe him 😆

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

Dalai Lama

In the interests of everyone the artist had a responsibility to use his medium well. In the Tibetan culture, most of the paintings are of deities or Buddhas, and they try to send a message of the value of the spiritual.

Dalai Lama

Freedom is the real source of human happiness and creativity. Irrespective of whether you are a believer or nonbeliever, whether Buddhist, Christian, or Jew, the important thing is to be a good human being.

Dalai Lama

Thank you but I did read his book, I can send it to you if you want. He never wrote anything racist.

Excerpt taken from The Descent of Man...

Subtitle of origin of species...

"The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life".

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).

Since when should a historian write about evolution? Evolution is for biologists, historians write about the history of humans and nothing else.
Archaelogists these days work closely together with biologists, mostly in the field of genes. The facts are that a gene passes by the woman to the child and they can backtrace it to the "first mother" they humouresly nicknamed "Eve". As any archaeologist will tell you, they have found that for Europe, "Eve" had a daughter they named "Yasmine". That's how far they can go back already; and BEFORE you use this as creationist arguement (why would you, you don't have any proof), if you know evolution you know that we ultimately have to have one pair to start of the humans, only here they evolved from something else and didn't got created by a god.

no comment..🙄 😆 😆

Well, if you do study your own religion you will know that many creationist say the world is 6000 years old. If you however claim those 7 days are metaphorical, who are you to be an authority on saying which parts of the bible are to be taken literal?

Go to google and do a search on Christian theology....

what are you talking about? there is a difference between history and biology. History does NOT write about evolution, biology does and they have created the evolution theory based on facts. Check the link tpt gave you, it'll tell you that evolution is based on facts whereas you still have to give any at all.
Well, as you saw by now, I don't like debates much where someone just blabantly disregards the questions people ask him: Where is your proof? I dislike it when people dodge the point and question, when they go to insults to hide their poor arguements, so yes, you are right: debate over if you don't have proof

🙄 no comment...

read the thread "evolutionism" please ... it's not that hard ... and requires very little effort..

Will do buddy..nice debating with you... 😄

More quotes from his Holiness about his and other RELIGIONS

All religions are essentially the same in their goal of developing a good human heart so that we may become better human beings.

His Holiness
the Dalai Lama

To me there is no difference whether president, beggar, or king.

His Holiness
the Dalai Lama

*note..I guess this quote kind of defeats Adam Poe's argument about fallacy of Authority..😆😆

Good human qualities-honesty, sincerity, a good heart-cannot be bought with money, nor can they be produced my machines, but only by the mind itself. We can call this the inner light, or God's blessing, or human qualitity. This is the essence of mankind.

*uh..oh..the Dalai Lama believes in an intelligent creator..

His Holiness
the Dalai Lama

Let me retract what I said originally about the Dalai Lama being a fool, it has now come to my understanding that he at least recognizes that the "philosophy" that he practices is classified as a religion, unlike a certain protector from the land of Eternia...Please Mr. Poe do not speak for the Dalai Lama anymore..your making a mockery out of his religion...🙄😆😆

Link to a websites..where the term "illogical fallacy" has been used...

http://ie.developerpipeline.com/160911202

The link below is a parody on the circular reason of "apologists" like Adam Poe, who use debate logic(fallacy of [insert phrase]) to dodge any valid arguments made against them. Insert Darwinism with LDS apologist and you can pretty much see the similarities...lol..
(*note the term illogical fallacy is also used in this website..lol)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3750/parody2.html
(lol..I know someone is going to flame me and say a geocities website does not count..oh well)

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Excerpt taken from The Descent of Man...

no comment..🙄 😆 😆

Go to google and do a search on Christian theology....

🙄 no comment...

Will do buddy..nice debating with you... 😄

Okay lets do a little summary of what we have learned in this debate kiddos...

1. Darwinism has no substantive scientific evidence supporting it. In recent years, evolutionists have referenced genes, mutations, and adaptation in order to relate this religion to science. By this logic...one could classify a comic book, fiction novel, or any other form of "psuedo scientific" media as a science as well. They've even coined the term "Micro Evolution" in place of adaptation, in order to further give their religion credibility, and to confuse people into thinking that adaptation has some type of relation to speciation(Macro Evolution).

2. Darwinism is theistic, and in actuality is a form of Humanism..a monetheistic(one god worshiping) religion which deifies man, meaning it essentially makes man the primary source/originater of his own existence. Unlike Buddhism/Christianity or other higher moral belief based religions, its principles are based on the concept of "Survival of the fittest" meaning those able to adapt to their environment the quickest are those who are the most fit to live.

3. The Creationism scientific model supports the logical order and intricate designs demonstrated by science and in nature. The Macro - Evolutionary scientific model supports randomness and disorder..something that is not demonstrated in nature or science.

4. Recorded history spans well over 3000 years, more than enough time for any type of Macro Evolution to have taken place within animals, however, nothing in recorded history has ever sited anything resembling the process of speciation.

5. Carbon Dating and Isochron Radiometric Dating...the two main forms of gauging the ages of fossils are fatally flawed..and have been stated by the Scientific community to be very inaccurate in determining fossils over several thousand years of age. This is significant because these are the main forms of dating fossils used by Evolutionists. Most of the dates of fossils listed today were determined by biased guess work, in a desperate effort to support Evolutionary theory.

6. Creationism is supported by historical evidence found in Dead Sea Scrolls, and many historical texts found in Asia, Egypty, and Africa.

7. We have been able to calculate the approximate mass of the entire universe, and in doing so realized how unlikely it would be for us to even exist. During the big bang, if the mass of the universe had been 'off' one direction or another by 0.000...6% (60 zeros before the 6) we would have either had too much mass, and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or we wouldn't have had enough mass for the energy to slow down enough to form into planets and stars and such. A cosmic calculation that is so finely tuned for producing not just life, but matter at all, suggests some higher intervention

8. Attempts have also been made to determine the probability of life forming as it exists on Earth. Any studies done in this field all suggest that the universe hasn't been around for long enough to reasonably assume that even simple single-celled organisms and strains of amino acids should have been able to form...let alone complex organisms and creatures as complicated as human beings. Such complexification of life over a relatively short amount of time (even though billions of years seems long to us) blatently suggests some sort of intelligent design.

9. No fossil has been found linking humans and apes to a common ancestor.

10. No "transitional fossils" of any kind have been deemed valid by the scientific community. Many have been noted to be frauds. Others have been been determined to be of one species of animal altogether. The most notable frauds are the Pitman Man, Archaeopteryx, and the Horse Series.

11. Darwin was a racist. He believed that the caucasion race was the highest form of the evolved modern man, while blacks, indians, and other minorities were the lower forms, a step above modern apes.

12. Creationism supports the exploration and study of all earth/natural sciences. The Creationist prinicipals make Science more tangible, by simply acknowledging that an intelligent being exists that created all forms of Natural Science, and of the Universe as a whole. The concept of Science in itself can not be proven by anything tangible..so it takes some degree of FAITH to believe in any theory applied to the origins of life.

*note 7 and 8 were direct quote from Digimark's post..excellently summarized by the way.

I'm back....and you're STILL arguing Creationism vs. Darwinism. That's NOT the point of this thread.

Nope...giving valid reasons as to why Creationism should be allowed to be in Science books...and why Darwinism could be classified as a religion, which would make it possible to exclude it from the Science books..Read from about pg 10 to current..

I'm not reffering to you specifically. I'm referring to everybody. I read the thread. And people still don't see the big picture. This is just another Creationism vs. Evolution thread. You're all still arguing which theory is more valid or more flawed. They still haven't touched upon the Constitution, the economy, the education system, the social impact, the textbook companies themselves, the students, the teachers and more importantly how this will affect everyone else in the country.

All I see is Creationism vs. Evolution. That's not the point of this thread.

Just read it some more: I don't know HOW the f*** Buddhism got into this debate. 4 friggin pages on it.

Originally posted by Draco69
I'm not reffering to you specifically. I'm referring to everybody. I read the thread. And people still don't see the big picture. This is just another Creationism vs. Evolution thread. You're all still arguing which theory is more valid or more flawed. They still haven't touched upon the Constitution, the economy, the education system, the social impact, the textbook companies themselves, the students, the teachers and more importantly how this will affect everyone else in the country.

All I see is Creationism vs. Evolution. That's not the point of this thread.

Actually, that all HAS been brought up, but has been completely ignored.

I saw them. They were honorable mentions. But they weren't indepth. Just a couple of sentences at most.

They should expand more on that though.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

*note 7 and 8 were direct quote from Digimark's post..excellently summarized by the way.

Thanks...I'm in a similar discussion in the religion thread right now where I basically copy/pasted the same post and added a few things.

Anyway, here's some exact info to back up my 'summaries'...I was called out in the religion forum for not having actual sources, so I wouldn't want something similar happening here.

...

From The Voice of the Earth, by Theodore Roszak

On Role of Chance in Evolution
“In the real study of nature, it makes no sense to hold that anything is in principle possible when in practice there is not enough time in the history of time itself for the process to work through all the permutations. The history of the universe is all the time there is; when we go beyond it, that is the point at which we confront zero probability.” (114)

“In the nineteenth century, Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the pioneers in the study of gases...took the position that chance alone accounted for the coherent structure of the universe. He even calculated the time required for chance to achieve that result. Enough time equals 10 [to the 10th to the 80th] years. A heroic calculation indeed: ten raised to a power expressed by another ten followed by eighty zeros. There would not be enough pages in all the books in all the libraries in the world to contain that large a figure.” 111

On the probability of life emerging out of the “primordial soup.”
“In the last 1970's Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that life could have originated from just such an undirected sloshing about. Rather than trying to compute the probability for an entire organism springing into existence, they limited the problem to a sequence of twenty or thirty key amino acids in the enzymes of some hypothetical cell. The number they came up with was one chance in 10 to the 40,000. (116)

“when it comes to the spontaneous origin of life, Christian De Duve has worked out the combined probability of a series of hypothetical but necessary “biogenic steps” taking place in exactly the right order. The numbers that result “border on the miraculous: 10 [to -300] for as few as one thousand consecutive steps.” He concludes that “a multiple-step process that relies on one improbable event’s following another is sure to abort sooner or later.” (130-131)

“When it comes to the role of pure chance in the nature, scientists have shown as great a capacity as the pious to become true believers, granting accident and coincidence a creative power once reserved only to God.” (130)

and the mass of the universe one...

The density parameter:
(Expresses the rate at which the universe must have expanded at the time of the Big Bang to achieve the present estimated density of matter.)
“John Gribbin has called this the “finest of finely tuned cosmic coincidences”’ he calculates that if the parameter had been different by the merest fraction (“a decimal point followed by sixty zeroes and a one”), galaxies could never have formed, and within them the stars that have generated every element besides hydrogen and helium.”
(John Gribbin and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and The Anthropic Principle, New York, Bantam Books, 1989, pp. 15-18.)

Both good reads.

Sorry if it isn't exactly about the law aspect of this Draco...but I don't think I know enough to speak authoritatively about actual practice or non-practice of this stuff....just contributing what I can.

-DM

Originally posted by Draco69
I'm not reffering to you specifically. I'm referring to everybody. I read the thread. And people still don't see the big picture. This is just another Creationism vs. Evolution thread. You're all still arguing which theory is more valid or more flawed. They still haven't touched upon the Constitution, the economy, the education system, the social impact, the textbook companies themselves, the students, the teachers and more importantly how this will affect everyone else in the country.

All I see is Creationism vs. Evolution. That's not the point of this thread.

Actually we've indirectly addressed most of those subjects..that was the reason why I brought up the point of "Darwinism" being a theistic religion, one could exclude it from the science textbooks based on the first amendment.

We've also touched upon how theories should be presented fair/balanced in the classroom. Myself and others believe that both theories should be taught in the classrooms, and the parent has the right to opt their child out of either lesson.

As far as your other points go..here's my opinion...

I doubt teaching Creationism would have much effect on the economy...😕

Socially I don't believe it would do much to Teachers, Students, etc. I was taught the Creationism in my Earth science class in 9th grade, it didn't change anything. This was in Public School by the way. No specific religion/scripture was referenced when teaching it. Question for you/others and don't take offense, why would you assume that it would have any more of a social impact than Evolution?

As far as the textbooks go..I'm a bit confused again. The textbook companies won't really be effected much in any way..they'll still be making money regardless of what's being printed..

Anyway..that's my 2 cents.. time for bed...😖leep:

Originally posted by Draco69
Just read it some more: I don't know HOW the f*** Buddhism got into this debate. 4 friggin pages on it.

Biggest reason Buddhism got involved was because I stated that Darwinism could be classified as a religion...Someone brought up the point that it could not because a religion can only be denoted by a "Creator"..which is an untrue statement since Buddhism is a religion that doesn't have a "Creator" in its religious philosophy...

Whob, If you had cared to read what I linked you to, you would have found out that EVERY One of your points is wrong.

#1&2 seeing as they're so simalar

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

Want Evidence?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/Ifossil_ev.shtml
I cant cut and paste because it has some wonderful explanitory pictures...

4) Ecology

The environment affects the evolution of living things.
As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.

House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss—both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale.

5) * Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned.
If that's the case, we can use one of three other methods to date fossil-bearing layers relative to one another: faunal succession, crosscutting relationships, and inclusions.
By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can learn which came first and which came next, but we need further evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of fossils.

* Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine “older than X, but younger than Y” dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.

6) Historical Texts, Or Legends/myths??

7) Ask The Omega if she comes back around, she's the credited Physic-ist or whatever you call it.

8) Same ask TO...

9 11 and 12 are just total Bull shit... Open ANY science book and you'll find plenty examples of Human evolution, its the most popular kind! and Creationism does not support science, it supports, "Ah why bother, God did it all anyway..."

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Whob, If you had cared to read what I linked you to, you would have found out that EVERY One of your points is wrong.

Not true..but as I have mentioned multiple times..you are welcome to your opinion..

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

Tp this has been addressed to many times to count in this thread..your relating Macro Evolution and Adaptation..which are entirely different concepts. Regardless of how many times you repost this..the answer remains the same..speciation of any sort has not been observed, has not been experimentally induced, and there is no evidence supporting it....but again..believe what you wish...

4) Ecology
The environment affects the evolution of living things.
As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.
House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss—both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale.

Did the Birds change into another species of animal?..answer: No...
Again we're continuing to compare apples and oranges..no one is debating ADAPTATION...but it is not the same as SPECIATION..this is easily rebutted by what has already been mentioned in the previous and many other posts...

5) * Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned.
If that's the case, we can use one of three other methods to date fossil-bearing layers relative to one another: faunal succession, crosscutting relationships, and inclusions.
By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can learn which came first and which came next, but we need further evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of fossils.

Dating fossils has little to do with the evolutionary argument..as I've stated before...Creationism is not just one set of beliefs..there are many different theories as to how the earth was created..I myself do not believe the earth was literally created in seven days..

Not to get into quoting scripture but the Bible supports this notion as it has been mentioned in many verses that to God.."1 day is a thousand years"

From a Scientific standpoint, Einstien's theory of relativity supports the notion of time being an abstract concept...only applicable to man....why are we to automatically assume that 1 day to us is exactly the same as 1 day to an intelligent Creator..

* Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine “older than X, but younger than Y” dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.

Again..another fallacy. Fossils are primarly found in "mixed rock" formations...Isochron dating is only somewhat accurate when dating fossils found in "whole" rock formations..which is very rare...even if a fossil were to be found in a whole rock formation..their is still no definitive way of determining exact dates..much of carbon dating as well as Isochron metholodogy is just guess work...seriously do some more reading on both of these subjects...

6) Historical Texts, Or Legends/myths??

Historical texts..Roman History has a very accurate account of Jesus, Paul, and his disciples. Historical writings found in Greece, Egypt, and other places give historical accounts of King David, Solomon, and many other prominent biblical figureheads...again..none of this would have to be taught in the classroom, however, I just wanted to give you a little information so that you can get a more accurate picture of how historically accurate the Bible actually is...

7) Ask The Omega if she comes back around, she's the credited Physic-ist or whatever you call it.

That's okay I won't I've read many of her posts and they seem to be exactly the same as yours...she has her opinion I have mine..but again what it all comes down to is faith and religion my friend..

9 11 and 12 are just total Bull shit... Open ANY science book and you'll find plenty examples of Human evolution, its the most popular kind! and Creationism does not support science, it supports, "Ah why bother, God did it all anyway..."

Again..adaptation is a simple concept..but it does not support the existence of Speciation..no "missing links" have been found...seriously bud..if they had been this debate would have been over a long time ago...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually we've indirectly addressed most of those subjects..that was the reason why I brought up the point of "Darwinism" being a theistic religion, one could exclude it from the science textbooks based on the first amendment.

We've also touched upon how theories should be presented fair/balanced in the classroom. Myself and others believe that both theories should be taught in the classrooms, and the parent has the right to opt their child out of either lesson.

As far as your other points go..here's my opinion...

I doubt teaching Creationism would have much effect on the economy...😕

Socially I don't believe it would do much to Teachers, Students, etc. I was taught the Creationism in my Earth science class in 9th grade, it didn't change anything. This was in Public School by the way. No specific religion/scripture was referenced when teaching it. Question for you/others and don't take offense, why would you assume that it would have any more of a social impact than Evolution?

As far as the textbooks go..I'm a bit confused again. The textbook companies won't really be effected much in any way..they'll still be making money regardless of what's being printed..

Anyway..that's my 2 cents.. time for bed...😖leep:

THERE WE GO. Focus on THAT. THAT's what this thread is about.

And TP read Digimark's post..its very informative and illustrates just how flawed the process of "natural selection" and "spontaneous generation" are..