saltydadcomics
I met him when i had no where else to turn.My intelligence,philosophy,willpower,attitude,human aid,theories about life, science and morales were all bankrupt and i was ready to check out because i could no longer see any way of feeling better day to day.In other words i met him at the edge of hell.(no pitchfork devil bullshit here).Here's the kicker.I now realize that it was me who got myself there by living by ideas of intelligence only.My knowledge of God did not come from me figuring out whether i was created or evolved.My experience of meeting with God came from a desire to find a way out of my own hell (which at the time i didn't even know it was hell).That is why i said religion should be in a class of self improvement.NOW ,WHEN PEOPLE LAUGH AT THIS POST I HOPE THEY REALIZE THAT ONE DAY THEY MAY STAND IN THE MIDST OF THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.Just as i did.This here is what i call casting pearls before swine.If you don't laugh or look down your nose at this post then all the better.I don't look down my nose at people who believe in evolution without a creator i pray for them to see what a wonder it is to be loved by SOMETHING SO POWERFUL.So powerful that it changes people.

People of faith are to be admirred, not laughed at... even if you don't have faith or belief. I'm sure people will disagree or argue with "your meeting", but only a twat would laugh at you for that.

there are people who believe evolution was an instrument of a higher power. i.e. me
but to make the bible as a science book, and teaching kids of false facts that is contradictory to scientific evidence is only gonna harm them later in life



science is not a fate. science is about trying to find the answer to a question, even if you don't like it. and you can't copped out by just saying "because it's God's will"...if that was humanity's attitude it would have never have grown a brain that questions everything.

sometimes religion just gets in the way of progress because they are hesitant to change.
FATE is good, but forcing others to your type of fate is bad. relgion such as evangelism is one carbomb away from becoming the counter part of muslim terrorists, I mean they're already recruiting children as "god's warriors"

On a side note - did you know there's 2 DIFFERENT stories of creation in the Bible? And they're contradictory? (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)

If the Bible is clear on Creationism being a pure and literal truth, then why would this be the case? So the only real extrapolation one can make from the Bible in terms of creation is that "God did it" because the "how He did it" is flawed.

It's possible to get around these contradicting stories by saying that "the Biblical statements in question have a higher level of truth than simple literal meaning", but such a statement requires rejecting the Bible as literal truth.

So, as I've always stated here... I'm with Subcultured: "an instrument of a higher power".

Creationism doesn't belong in the sciene room. But God DOES belong in the school.

Indeed. It's another reason why I subscribe to a creator God but not a literal biblical interpretation. I would say that there are many religious books that should be taught, but not as literal truth. There's no argument that the Bible has had a great deal of influence in history, art, culture, and just about everything. So have other major scriptural works. I would encourage my children to take a "Scripture as Literature" class like I had to in college, were one offered in their school. I learned more about the Bible from that 1 semester class than I did from the 12 years of Bible study I did with the church. Analyzing the book objectively, just as it is in text, can be a great tool for anyone that needs an understanding of literature or is going to pursue lit later on. Belief in the scripture would then not be needed to pass the course, as it would with a creationist biology class.

reconjsh
Creationism doesn't belong in the sciene room. But God DOES belong in the school.

Sure, as long as he stays out of sight.

Atom Apple

reconjsh
Creationism doesn't belong in the sciene room. But God DOES belong in the school.

Sure, as long as he stays out of sight.

What?

I believe that was an joke.

Anyway to move on this discussion here's some few points I just thought of.
I believe one of the reasons why that isn't in school in psychology class is because:

If you even mention God, then as Political correctness goes, you have to induce EVERY OTHER RELIGION'S ICONS into the discussion.
Because after all, there's tons of kids who has families that does not believe in THAT "God".
and to be fair, some people might feel like that being taught in school at all might be some underhanded attempt by Christians/Catholics/Lutherans/whatever to covert their children away into a different religion. Which the parents may not accept at all if they're trying to raise their children the "Hebrew/pagan/whatever" way instead of the "Christan" way.

After all, some Christians certainly might feel the same way if they ever found out that one of the teachers were.. say, an pagan in terms of being an wiccan who worshiped The moon goddess, for example.
And they also found out that she was teaching an class on stories about different gods and goddesses. Since it's literate class, most people might see that just as a innocent way to explore mythology.. but those Christan parents if they saw their kids researching into the Moon goddess or something...
then they may just feel like that pagan teacher is trying to covert their children into being witches or something.

that may be just the same exact situation with that whole "god intended for evolution to happen, it was planned by him!" thing or the "God made the earth just like how the bible stated!" thing.

And if you have to teach that, then you may have to teach about Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Agnostic beliefs, Islamic beliefs, etc..... to make it be fully political correct. After all, all of those religions has their own creation story too!

So in the end, it may be just too much work to appease everyone?

we can always have a subject just based on exploring religions...they have that in college, but it might teach highschoolers to be more tolerant and respectful of other religions

subcultured
we can always have a subject just based on exploring religions...they have that in college, but it might teach highschoolers to be more tolerant and respectful of other religions

true, we could do with that...

but sadly I can just see some parents raising an big fuss because they think that their children exploring the knowledge of other religions might cause them to "stray off the right religion". The parents' religion being the "right" one of course...

because to those people, their religion is the only RIGHT one and everything else is just WRONG! So therefore, they don't want their children anywhere near any of the "wrong" ones, and don't want their children to be aware of any other religions in-depth until they're adults.

sadly, I know a couple of people like that... =\

Just teach an "ethics" class. Few schools require or even provide a class of this sort at the High School (or earlier) levels.

Start with the core morality discussions of ancient philosphers: Aristole, Plato, Socrates, etc... Then delve into ethics and morality of more recent cultures like Asian, Hebrew, European, etc. Finish with modern day cultures and bam, done.

I mean, we need to teach kids basic right and wrong if parents aren't doing so and trust me, parents, as a whole, aren't... or at least it isn't being taught in any lasting manner. And teaching just christian morality and theory is agreeably wrong. So include it in a larger morality/ethics class. Certainly christian morality contains many of the universal morals... so christian advocates would see this as a positive step.

But this is all pretty off the subject of this thread.

It's not really up to our government to teach our children to believe in something divine. And certainly shouldn't be taught in a science. My solution to this would be to introduce it in a philosophy class, that can be taken as an elective so children have the choice not to learn it. You know, like all those Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, Coptic, Buddhist, etc... children.

One of the arguments given in this debate, that hasn't been addressed is the validity of the scientific method used by creationists and proponents of intelligent design. The question in this scientific theory that is posed is "Could there be a God" or some other phrase with a word like "may" or "can."

The problem then, with wording a question like this - a question you have to make a hypothesis for, and test for - is that it is not a definite answer. They only way to prove it is to disprove science, and, as already stated, you cannot prove something by disproving the other.
A really simple example I remember learning in one of my math classes went along the lines of this:
A equals a pizza, and b equals a circle, and c equals a triangle.
If A is B then C doesn't even come into play.
If A is not B, does that mean A is C?
No. While C is an option out there, there is nothing that directly links one absolute to the other.
In other words, If A is existence, and B is evolution, and C is creationism,
If A is not B, that does not mean that A is C.
I mean, I can also point out that it also doesn't mean Not B means A is not C.
Of course, I'm going to abandon this now, because my limited memory of these sentences has come to an end.

Another problem with the scientific method used by the creationists is that you can't test for God without defining who or what God is, and how to quantify His presence.
There's no control, only variable. I say that because there are no specific lab conditions in which these say 5 people in the room may not already be being prayed for, or prayed against. Scientists can't come out and say "These 5 people cannot be prayed for!" because that's an infringement on my rights. There's no way to disprove God, so you therefor can't test for God. It's actually one of the basis, if I remember my biology and high school, and grade school science classes correctly, of the scientific method. You can't prove what can't be disproved. Maybe I have that wrong? I'm sure someone more scientifically adept could fix up my false arguments and make them work better.

And because you can't test it, you can't formulate a theory.
Now, as already mentioned, a theory is not just some idea. Those or more philosophical notions on how life works. In terms of science, a theory must be tested over and over again, and these tests must not disprove your hypothesis. Only then can is be a theory.


The theories that are out there are not fixed truths, but rather ideas that have not yet been disproved.

Furthermore, I know this is an old article, but it's one of my favorite things to read regarding Creationism:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

I can't follow my train of thought anymore, so I'm ending it here.

Jillers
Furthermore, I know this is an old article, but it's one of my favorite things to read regarding Creationism:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

Yeah, the Catholic Church has long since held that 'creationism' most likely false. And that evolution is most probably the answer, with the Earth having existed for millions of years.

Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding evolution:
"The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies that have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

The Catechism is essentially a "catholic rulebook". It's an evolving document however, and new revelation sometimes causes changes to it.


Back on topic, I don't see why a general Ethics and Morality class or a Philosphies class can't be taught and made mandatory in High School??? I know philosphy is sometimes offered, but to the best of my knowledge, it's not the norm or typically mandatory. I think when creationists are making the arguement to include creationism... their bigger picture is "God is absent from school".

To me, that says "morals and ethics are what's really missing." And that I agree with.

All of these are already college classes and if anyone seriously cares enough they can take them. Morals are a parental thing.

Atom Apple
All of these are already college classes and if anyone seriously cares enough they can take them. Morals are a parental thing.

but the point from long ago is parent's aren't being responsible in this role. Alot are down-right absent from this role.

Looks like Reconj really did go do some intense reading when he said "thanks guys I'm gonna go educate myself on evolution." He went straight from ill-informed to well-informed.

I can't believe a debate on the intarn3t actually changed someone's opinion in the end, and he went and edumacated himself too! OMG it's the 7th Sign.

The only flaw in your reasoning that seems to be left, is that you think evolution should (ideally) head towards a subjective human perfection. That is still your religion talking.

Evolution doesn't "care" if you're fat or lazy, or if you get welfare handouts which enables you to have 20 welfare babies. All it "cares about" is the fact that you had 20 babies. You understand this, but you still express regret that the stress factors for human evolutions has changed.

But there is no regret. Evolution doesn't reach an endpoint, or strive for a higher plane. It just keeps on going like a pack of dice. Rest assured, if we are cast into the stone age tomorrow, humans will start getting leaner and more motivated again.

As for the person who found GOD in the midst of her despair... Ok, good for you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution =/= against God.

mlai
I can't believe a debate on the intarn3t actually changed someone's opinion in the end, and he went and edumacated himself too! OMG it's the 7th Sign.

Well, first off... thanks. =) I'm not so full of myself to assume that I know everything. And I'm actually one of those rare people that sometimes exit a debate having a different opinion than when I started. Debating is much different than waiting for your turn to talk; at least for me. You probably assumed I was giving up or being a sarcastic @$$, eh? That's fair since most people are.

I found it entertaining that you used a pop-culture religious reference to express your astound-i-tude-ness.

I do want to point out that I've always stated I believe evolution to be the case and have always mostly understood it. I just feel there's a divine influence. But you were right, creationism - especially in its very narrow definition that I only recently understood - does NOT belong in the science room and I was wrong for suggesting such.

I still feel, however, that the real problem is a lack of morality in graduates and most people arguing creationism really just want this newest generation not to be so crappy. And that's really my point. They need ethical training... I know first hand. But this discussion is for another thread (which currently exists, btw).

Someone
The only flaw in your reasoning that seems to be left, is that you think evolution should (ideally) head towards a subjective human perfection. That is still your religion talking.

You're right on this. But you're mostly right because I didn't clearly explain my point. I understand evolution doesn't fit into that. But now that we're a higher level being and have some direct control over our evolution, it seems that it should become our goal to head towards human perfection. Subjective? Yeah, my view is, sure. But certainly there are some universal virtues we can try to achieve. Again, perhaps a discussion for another thread.

1. I thought the 7th Sign movie was pretty good, and back when Demi Moore was actually hot and not some dominatrix pedophile Wicked Queen that she is now.

2. Actually, I don't even bother with Creationism. That one is as absurd as Tom's Scientology, and all I could say was "Aww... lookit all the cute widdle hick children~!" The one I've been taking a stand against has always been Intelligent Design, which is 10x more poisonous. I basically assume everyone was talking about ID when they say Creationism.

3. It is fine to think the Hand of God is in evolution. As everyone said, evolution doesn't conflict with the idea of an omnipotent creator.

4. The reason Creationists can't reconcile with #3 is because they feel a need for the Bible to be an absolute authority. They feel it cannot be that, if it cannot back itself up with FACTS. "Metaphorical" or "allegorical" isn't good enough for them. Or maybe they feel their target audience don't have the IQ for it.

5. Attempting to "control evolution," for whatever intentions, is impractical, impossible, imperfect, and only leads to eugenics. Not to mention that it is a flawed concept of evolution to begin with. You're talking about social Darwinism, a philosophical standpoint. Not evolution.
However, if we teach our society that virtue rather than vice is an attractive trait, then we can start off on what you believe. Unfortunately, mass media is obsessed with vice, because vice sells.
You'll need the equivalent of an American Taliban to achieve your ideals.

mlai
3. It is fine to think the Hand of God is in evolution. As everyone said, evolution doesn't conflict with the idea of an omnipotent creator.

4. The reason Creationists can't reconcile with #3 is because they feel a need for the Bible to be an absolute authority. They feel it cannot be that, if it cannot back itself up with FACTS. "Metaphorical" or "allegorical" isn't good enough for them. Or maybe they feel their target audience don't have the IQ for it.

5. Attempting to "control evolution," for whatever intentions, is impractical, impossible, imperfect, and only leads to eugenics. Not to mention that it is a flawed concept of evolution to begin with. You're talking about social Darwinism, a philosophical standpoint. Not evolution.
However, if we teach our society that virtue rather than vice is an attractive trait, then we can start off on what you believe. Unfortunately, mass media is obsessed with vice, because vice sells.
You'll need the equivalent of an American Taliban to achieve your ideals.

3 - There's something we can agree on.

4 - The arguement for absolute authority is an ubsurd one. As I laid out eariler (or was it in a different thread?) there's 2 distinct and contradictory stories for creation. So obviously the Bible can't be absolute literal truth. Sola Fide and Sola Scripture - rally calls for the protestant movement - are to blame for this. Just reading the Bible and believing in God is not enough to understand the Bible... and probably isn't enough for salvation (another forum arguement, I'm sure.) So, we can agree on this too.

5 - Now we're talking semantics. You and I can agree Virtue > vice in terms of what we want we as the human race to move towards, I assume? Whatever it is called - social darwinism - is what I'm talking about then. And I'm guessing you would agree to what I suggested. But just because it'd take an American Taliban to achieve doesn't mean it's any less right.

Anyways, I don't see anything left for us to debate... I guess we can wait and pounce on newcomers as they suggest creationism as a science?

But my suggestion of "social darwinism" fits into the definition of evoltion... even that of a specific life science definition.

From Google: "define:evolution"

Someone
Definitions of evolution on the Web:

development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.

=)

And what's wrong with eugenics? Granted, some methods of accomplishing this are pretty evil... but the hope alone of making the human race smarter and healthier can't be a bad one, can it?

Oh, 7th Sign Moore to GI JANE or STRIPTEASE Moore... indeed very hot. That 10-ish year block was my *cough* changing years as a young man. *cough*

Please tell me what the 2 separate stories for Creation are. I'm curious. Never heard about this one before.

mlai
Please tell me what the 2 separate stories for Creation are. I'm curious. Never heard about this one before.

The first is Genesis 1:1 on...
The second is Genesis 2:4 on...
There's also brief accounts in Proverbs and Psalms.
There's also others too... I don't remember them. Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are the main ones though.

As a theological text, this doesn't cause a problem. As a literal text, there are of course several problems and this is why a purely literal translation doesn't work.

There's many inconsistances and contradictions - some argue because of varying authors' perspectives as the cause - between the two like order of creation; influence of God - passive or active; God's satisfation; reason for creation in the first place; Human origin - one from the earth the other distinctly NOT from the earth; plants - order they were created in relation to the other creations and also why... one has some plants off limits (Garden of Eden fruit tree, for example... but there's others) the other is all plants are for food; etc etc etc... the list goes on... but honestly I don't feel like studying Genesis for an hour or two to properly explain all this.

Here's a google.com search on the subject. There's plenty of bias and unbiased articles out there on it.
Link

It should be noted that there are also scholars out there that argue there AREN'T differences between all the bibical acocunts of creation. But I don't feel like getting deep into that at all. For me, if there's even one single contradiction in creation, it's enough to make me consider it's not literal... because that alone negates something as being "literal"... but oh well.

And of course, we got the dinosaur in the room (pun intended) of dinosaurs existing with man <6,000 years ago.

But whatever. Read up on it... there's tons and tons of resources out there regarding this issue.

I hope that helped.

This brings up why I get frustrated by protestants and denominations... some think that they can just read the Bible and get it. And clearly, as shown above, this causes problems.

Yay, for being Catholic.

If theres one thing I learned in BibTheo its you can't take the bible literally. Especially the old testemant. My favorite anti-literal example is the story of Cain and Able. Cain kills Able. God finds out, puts the mark of sin on him and sends him away. Cain says "when people see me they'll kill me!" God says, "anyone who harms you will have that harm fall onto him and his family sevenfold" or something like that.

Who is Cain afraid of? His parents? At this point, if taking the bible word for word, the only people around Cain, Able, Adam, and Eve. And Cain killed Able! He effectively eliminated a quarter of the world's population. It's the most successful genocide in history! Plus God's sending Cain away. it's not like he's just going to run into his parents they'd have to hunt him down.

no sir, it just doesn't add up.

the bible doesn't prove anything.

That reminds me the the Nordic creation myths. The stories that involve the creation of man and civilisation rely on man and civilisation already being around to facilitate the process. It just goes to show that religions have a great social dimension but they're of limited use when tackling subjects that are far better suited to science.

reconjsh
Creationism doesn't belong in the sciene room. But God DOES belong in the school.

Seperation of Church and State. Ever hear of it?
Unless it's a privately funded school, you can't have public schools teaching about God. Maybe address the concept of God or Gods, but you have to consider that there are those who worship a different God, or many Gods. So while and ethics class is a good idea, putting God into school violates the constitution and the rights of the people going to that school.

Indeed: Don't teach them religion, rather; Teach them about religion. I believe that learning about different religions and religion in general is more important than learning a different language. This is a massive part of our culture, and kids shouldn't learn about it from some opinionated idiot or some crazy "preacher" type character. :)

And keep the dogma of any particular religion away from the science class. ;)

ccs1989

reconjsh
Creationism doesn't belong in the sciene room. But God DOES belong in the school.

Seperation of Church and State. Ever hear of it?
Unless it's a privately funded school, you can't have public schools teaching about God. Maybe address the concept of God or Gods, but you have to consider that there are those who worship a different God, or many Gods. So while and ethics class is a good idea, putting God into school violates the constitution and the rights of the people going to that school.

I HAVE heard of it. I happen to know a lot about the concept. Do you?

Mind showing me where "seperation of church and state" is in the constitution? I think you'll be sadly disappointed to find that it's not there at all.

Yeah... but there's kinda this thing called the "First Amendment." It... kinda makes a big point of that issue with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise. Because basically, having a "keep God in the classroom" attitude is not gonna work as it is essentially Congress imposing a religious value upon you which may cause you to not be able to exercise your own beliefs effectively.

And that's how that works.

Vagabond: Free Excercise and Establishment clauses are not the same as "seperation of church and state" and they do not negate this as a possiblity:

ozoneocean
Indeed: Don't teach them religion, rather; Teach them about religion. I believe that learning about different religions and religion in general is more important than learning a different language. This is a massive part of our culture, and kids shouldn't learn about it from some opinionated idiot or some crazy "preacher" type character. :)

#1 The First Amendment states only congress is forbidden to establish a religion.

#2 The Constitution proclaims any matters that are not addressed in the Constitution are to be handled by the individual states.

#3 Education is not mentioned in the Constitution.

#4 States should have any and all legal backing on if to have an established religious course taught in their schools. The federal goverment should have no legal means to stop them.

Every branch of the goverment is free to express and embrace any religion they chose, except, congress.

If your local city goverment wants a big Christian theme in their goverment buildings, that is not a violation of the first amendment. Nor then are the 10 commandments in a court house. In fact, trying to stop them from having any of said items is unconstitutional.

I also agree with oceanozone. Teach theology, not religion. So kids can make an educated decision on whether or not they should believe in anything at all.

Philosphy should be taught in schools too. You don't need to be a college grad to understand Plato.

Philosophy and theology will inprove a childs intelligence. Everything else just improves their wisdom, and without intelligence, wisdom is useless.