FOCUS ON: Let churches and parents teach creationism

The star-Telegram ^ | Jul 30, 2008

[Soliton]

Whatever happened to parents and churches taking the responsibility for teaching their young about the values that their faith promotes?

What about the "concerned" asking themselves if they are the kind of role models and mentors whom youth can relate to as having the highest values inclined in human nature?

Have the "concerned" decided that it would be better if public schools teach the "values" that they should be teaching?

[Soliton]

Teach science in science class and teach religion in church.

[Dr. Thorne]

Teach science in science class and teach religion in church.

Sure... even if the science doesn't make sense.

The problem is not so much that religion is trying to get into the classroom, but that science has stopped investigating, theorizing and proving, and has, instead, placed it's faith in a theory that falls apart repeatedly under scrutiny.

However, if any science teacher or college professor has the temerity to discuss the failures of Darwinism, he or she will not be in the job for long. There is a whiff of totalitarianism in the rarified air of science and those who hate religion are using it to shut up any questioning person.

[Soliton]

Sure... even if the science doesn't make sense.

can you please provide a link to an experiment that supports intelligent design or creationism?

[Amelia]

Public Education Ping

This list is for intellectual discussion of articles and issues related to public education (including charter schools) from the preschool to university level. Items more appropriately placed on the “Naughty Teacher” list, “Another reason to Homeschool” list, or of a general public-school-bashing nature will not be pinged. If you would like to be on or off this list, please freepmail Amelia, Gabz, Shag377, or SoftballMominVa

[Amelia]

I have a question...if the Intelligent Design proponents were able to design an experiment that would definitively prove or disprove the existence of a Creator, do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing?

[scottdeus12]

However, if any science teacher or college professor has the temerity to discuss the failures of Darwinism, he or she will not be in the job for long. There is a whiff of totalitarianism in the rarified air of science and those who hate religion are using it to shut up any questioning person.

Well said. The same whiff you speak of stinks up Freerepublic as well.

[scottdeus12]

“can you please provide a link to an experiment that supports intelligent design or creationism?”

Here’s one: http://www.freerepublic.com/~soliton/

[Soliton]

Cute, but your belief system is built upon the sand.

[Deinococcus radiodurans]

The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html

The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html). When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This “seeing is believing” basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

[allmendream]

Amazing that you think Science has stopped investigating and theorizing. Meanwhile those of us who DO Science laugh at your supposition. The “doubling time” in Biology is less than 20 years and shrinking, meaning we double the amount of information known about living things every 20 years, and the rate is accelerating!

Far from ‘falling apart repeatedly under scrutiny’, the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection has received massive corroboration by sequencing animals genomes and finding exactly the pattern of similarity and divergence one would expect from some DNA sequences being under intense selective pressure and other DNA sequences being free from selective pressure and observed to change at the neutral mutation rate.

The majority of Scientists in the USA are people of faith such as myself, they do not “hate religion”, and there is nothing “totalitarian” about insisting that Scientific criticisms of a Scientific theory actually be Scientific.

[scottdeus12]

“Cute, but your belief system is built upon the sand.”

Well, without knowing me personally, I’m not sure how you can say my belief system is built on sand...it isn’t.

The point I was trying to make is that you need to look no further than a mirror to see what ‘experiment’ shows the validity of an Intelligent Designer.

Some folks believe that we all started out as simple organisms and, over time, evolved into the infinetely complex beings we are today. And, sorry, I don’t buy it. That is a belief system built upon sand....imho.

So I have a question for you....why is it you continue to post these threads? What is your axe to grind with Christianity anyway?

[Soliton]

So I have a question for you....why is it you continue to post these threads? What is your axe to grind with Christianity anyway?

I don't have anything against Christianity as a religion based on faith. My axe grinding occurs when people confuse faith with science.

I believe we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to science and scientists. I particularly hate the vilification of Darwin. He didn't set out to contradict the Bible. He went where the evidence led him.

I post science articles on evolution because the Liars for God on FR and elsewhere claim the science doesn't exist to support evolution. I prove them wrong every day.

[scottdeus12]

Very well.

Those who exalt themselves shall be humbled; Those who humble themselves shall be exalted.

Good luck to you,

Scott

[Soliton]

Good luck to you,

And also with you

[tpanther]

BINGO!

The vast evidence supports the fact that Christians are involved in PRESERVING our culture, not trying to ram it down throats.

Meanwhile, it’s the godless liberals that whine and force their disbelief on others forcing public places like schools to not be allowed to put up Christmas trees during the holidays for instance.

Micheal Newdow doesn’t see things the way HE wants, so he hijacks his own daughter and fails miserably while demanding the words Under God be stricken from the pledge.

It’s just incessant liberal idiocy running wild...we must accpet this not only in schools, but we can’t have the 10 commandments in courtrooms, we must accept the homosexual agenda...Las Cruces N.M. must be renamed, etc. etc. etc.

Meanwhile, science should be FAR more concerned about the hot air cultists and the goreacle. Legitimate scientists dispute global warming on the scale (and cause) as the goreacle and his legions contend.

There is simply no way science can be separated from faith. After all it’s on faith that also disbelieves in God.

And at what point do we stop separating science from belief in God?

Since there’s no proof of love, do we expel someone if they make a statement “I love science” and scream and whine at them: “that’s not science”!??

Math isn’t so anal as science, come to think of it, neither is philosophy, english, history...

What if they ask for directions to the restroom on the first day of science class?

Is the professor obligated to explain, “that’s not science, so you’ll just have to hold it and see me after science class”?

Seems overly marxist to me.

Finally so much of science is nothing more than opinion.

A slew of doctors can express study after study explaining why theY approve of drug A as the best hyperstension medication, while an equal number and just as distinguished group of doctors swear by drug B.

[Caramelgal]

There is simply no way science can be separated from faith. After all it’s on faith that also disbelieves in God. And at what point do we stop separating science from belief in God?

Science operates on the scientific method.

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Religion on the other hand demands Faith

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality (ergo a belief in a spiritual nature and in spiritual immortality), or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.

Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as "trust," "belief," or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust," faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.

Science (good science that is, and not junk science) demands a rational and unbiased observation of a physical phenomena and a hypothesis based on that observation that can be demonstrated and tested in a controlled environment with the results well documented so that other scientists can objectively try to prove or disprove the hypothesis by replicating the results for themselves or failing to replicate the results. Bad hypothesis’s, arrived by flawed data or flawed methods are eventually thrown out were as a hypothesis that stands up to the rigors of the scientific method and sometimes fierce peer criticism and review by other scientists go from the status of hypothesis to theory.

Faith on the other hand demands a steadfast and unwavering belief in something that can neither be proven or disproved and attempts to disprove one’s faith often makes the believer even more steadfast in their belief.

Math isn’t so anal as science, come to think of it, neither is philosophy, english, history...

Like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang or a Heliocentric solar system, contrary to the protestations of some, Mathematics is silent on the bigger spiritual question of the existence or the non-existence of God. But I don’t see people demanding that alternative mathematics like an alternate Biblical based alternative to Pi be taught along side accepted mathematical principals. Why is that? One could argue that if the Bible is the source of all Truth and Knowledge and since the Bible doesn’t explain Pi, then Pi must not be true or must be questioned as to its validity?

As far as philosophy and history and literature that are more subjective in nature, I can see were a point of view either Christian or non-Christian could be applied to the interpretations but as far as English, spelling and grammar, like science, it is what it is and neither proves nor disproves God and shouldn’t try to.

What if they ask for directions to the restroom on the first day of science class? Is the professor obligated to explain, “that’s not science, so you’ll just have to hold it and see me after science class”? Seems overly marxist to me.

That’s just a very silly and unrealistic example. But if I were in that science class, even in an elementary school science class I think I could have made a sound argument that “holding it” would be both detrimental to me physically and mentally and my eventual inability to hold it could be a health hazard to my fellow students. I could offer this hypothesis and “demonstrate” it if need be. Oh and the science teacher would probably and deservedly be fired.

Finally so much of science is nothing more than opinion. A slew of doctors can express study after study explaining why theY approve of drug A as the best hyperstension medication, while an equal number and just as distinguished group of doctors swear by drug B.

Having worked for a pharmaceutical company I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong in your assumption that drug A or B comes down to just a matter of “opinion”.

When a researcher comes up with a new drug compound that shows potential as being useful to treat a certain disease or set of symptoms (a hypothesis) it undergoes many years of laboratory research; chemical, biochemical and animal testing, by various scientific disciplines, both in house and by outside independent laboratories (the scientific method) at the cost of many millions of dollars. In between, filings of these findings are submitted to the FDA before approval is granted to go on with the research and the next step of testing. And add to that the engineering disciplines who have to come up with the manufacturing of the drug and the quality assurance engineers who ensure that what is developed in the lab can be reliably replicated on a mass scale. On average it takes about 10 years of rigorous research and testing from idea to delivery before a new pharmaceutical is deemed safe and effective enough for human clinical trials and several more years of passing those trials before you can obtain a prescription for it at your pharmacy counter. The vast majority of new drug compounds don’t make it even near to human clinical trials and for good reason. I have hypertension and I’m glad to know a whole lot of science went into the drug I’m taking rather than someone’s pure faith and belief it would be safe and effective.

Drug A and B might both treat hypertension effectively and safely but the reason my doctor may prescribe one over the other might have to do with my doctor’s experience and success with one drug over another, it’s cost and dosing options or other medical conditions and I might have that makes one drug’s lack of side effects more desirable or contraindications like Drug A might be more effective but might have a very, very slight risk of birth defects and so is contraindicated for women of child bearing years over Drug B that is slightly less effective but without that risk.

Then again my doctor might have a better rapport with the pharmaceutical rep for Drug A and may be more inclined to prescribe Drug A over Drug B but that has more to do with effective marketing and salesmanship, business and human nature than it does with science. But my doctor has proven that he is willing to change my medication if the first drug he prescribed has not been effective in lowering my blood pressure. He tries something, makes observations and if that doesn’t work, he investigates further and tries something else. That’s science. If my doctor prescribed me a drug based on his faith alone, his prayers, his reading of tea leaves or of my horoscope, I’d be looking for a new doctor.

[tpanther]

Ummmm.... liberals ARE silly and unrealistic! That’s kind of the point of the whole insanity of trying to separate faith from the opinions of science, or pi or whatever you choose!

Political correctness simply KNOWS no bounds to unrealistic silliness!

As Rush Limbaugh often points out, being absurd to illustrate the absurd.

Las Cruces N.M.: godless liberals DEMAND the city change it’s name...(that equally silly and unrealistic separation of church and state thingy...) unlike L.A. where they demanded the cross be removed from the town’s logo, the VERY NAME of the town of Las Cruces (the crosses) is too offensive!

You can find all the doctors you want to but the FACT remains, human beings are fallible, yes including the so-called scientific method we use. There are too many variables within the scientific method that are imperfect. Just because it’s tested means there’s no concensus unless it’s something clear cut like the earth is round, (OOOPS...elliptical, slightly ovoid...etc. etc. etc.)

but if two medicines work similarly well for hypertension, or weather will change and why...well we will debate all those variables to the end of time with scientists exclaiming other scientists as using junk science ad infinatum.

Science is influences by politics, human nature, imperfections and yes faith, like it or not.

500 hundred years from now we will look back on things we just KNOW are science and call it junk science but TODAY people champion the scientific method used to come to such conclusions.

And exactly what IS junk science?

I’ve seen a scientist exclaim a peer uses junk science, but lo and behold...they have the same training, same background, same education, same pretty degrees hanging on their walls...

After all if your name is Leonardo DiCaprio you wholly support the hot air cult of global warming as legit science!

Once again science too often boils down to nothing more than opinion!

As far as working with a pharmaceutical company...I’m a nurse, so I see it for myself! In practice, and first hand! It is YOU who are wrong!

And there’s nothing wrong with opinion, but it too can no more be separated from science no more than faith!

After all science is something imperfect human beings practice!

VERY silly and unrealsitic human beings!

BTW...peers tell algoreacle’s crowd that global warming is a hoax, but hey the debate is over algore says!

Which is why it’s now climate change I guess! That or the canceleed speeches from record snowfall was just too embarassing for even him!

If you hear one day red wine is good for you and the next day it’s bad, keep in mind the “scientists” may or may not have stock in vineyards.

[Soliton]

Science operates on the scientific method.

you have a very attractive mind!