Posted on 11/17/2004 7:13:45 PM PST by naturalman1975
Schools should teach the biblical creation story alongside evolutionary theory, Family First chairman Peter Harris said yesterday.
While his fledgling party - arising out of the Assemblies of God church - had no formal policy on school curriculums, Mr Harris said his personal view was that children should be taught both perspectives.
Asked at the National Press Club in Canberra whether he supported both perspectives being taught, he said: "Of course we'd like to see a balanced approach to education, and... all options and all viewpoints, world viewpoints, should be put forward and people should be entitled to make their own decisions," he said.
Mr Harris said his party had raised $1.2 million in donations for the federal election, but had none from the United States, where the religious right has become a political force.
There was diverse support for Mr Harris' views on teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Australian National University anthropologist Alan Thorne said there was nothing wrong with putting both views to students.
"A balanced view is better than an extreme view in education," he said. "From a scientific perspective, it would be very silly indeed to claim God went around poking fossils into rocks, (but) the two can be quite compatible. There's no reasons why they can't address different aspects of our development."
Labor's federal education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said: "All young people should have an understanding of a range of religious beliefs."
But acting Australian Education Union Victorian president Ann Taylor warned schools should distinguish between established scientific fact and philosophical or religious belief.
Thanks for the ping!
It is not me who is conflating. It is the evolutionist. What "living matter" could possibly be present at The Big Bang? Doesn't evolutionary theory surmise life somehow formed later out of some primordial soup? From whence did it come?
Why does this long-abandoned chestnut of creationism keep rearing its head?
Please inform us all when the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were debunked, by whom, and how?
Unless, of course, one looks looks up from the Bible now and again and takes a peek at the very world that God created.
I do so every day, and am grateful. Frankly, He is under no obligation to tell us everything. But, He has told us enough that we can understand just what He has done.
Do you presume that everything God has to say he's already said?
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean if Scripture is now complete (but still unfulfilled), yes. If you mean when we someday stand face to face with Him, no.
I look forward to that day in due time. Do you?
Yikes. It is considered good form to know the rudiments of the topic under debate. Please learn them.
Please inform us all when the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were debunked, by whom, and how?
Oh honestly. You stated that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics contradict evolution. That particular bit of drivel has been so thoroughly parsed and discredited it is now considered by creationists themselves to be an embarrassing assertion. Yet you persist in using it. Do you feel that a smattering of dishonesty is justifiable to achieve your goals? And just what goal are you hoping to achieve? Temporary conversion of a few gullibles?
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean if Scripture is now complete (but still unfulfilled), yes.
Frankly, you give every appearance of worshiping the Bible, not God.
If you mean when we someday stand face to face with Him, no. I look forward to that day in due time. Do you?
Self-congratulatory piety coupled with smarmy condemnation. Duly noted.
The "theory" didn't get a boost. Forcing it into the curriculum got a boost.
"Why just Biblican creation? Why not the creation myths of other religion? How about the Hoopi Indian creation story?"
Evolution is not science either. There is plenty of information to lend doubt to it. But evolutionist faith won't permit it. You are deceiving yourself if you think your faith is based on objective reasoning. It isn't and I have known doctors who have said the same.
As for "creation myths of other religions", your bias is showing. You call them "myths" and reveal your ignorance already.
But here is the challenge:
Allow intelligent design to be taught. Allow it to be debated in a class whether a "creator" (Hoopi or otherwise) is more likely to have made the universe or whether we all descended from a great cosmic accident. Evolutionist won't allow it to be taught because they (and you) FEAR the truth may be something other than your faith.
Do you really believe a debate amongst hormone-handicapped teenagers in a public-school classroom will shed significant light on the relative merits of intelligent design and evolution?
"Do you really believe a debate amongst hormone-handicapped teenagers in a public-school classroom will shed significant light on the relative merits of intelligent design and evolution?"
By that standard, nothing should be discussed in schools. Perhaps you prefer rote memorization and recital.
All I want is for my own kids to not be forcefed a THEORY as if it were a fact.
"Okay. We'll make sure to emphasize that evolution, like gravity, is just a theory.
On the other hand, "intelligend design" does not qualify as a theory and as such has no place in science classrooms."
The effect of gravity can be observed even if it stills falls as a theory. On the other hand, ID and evolution, being about the beginning of the universe cannot be observed and both are equally philosophy and science. In fact, the origins of evolution have as much to do with philosophy as they do science. God had to be killed for humanism to take hold.
You have the last word. Your view is obviously set in your faith.
Actually, yes. That is preferrable when it comes to learning the rudiments of mathematics and science. Call me crazy, but I think half-baked speculation by half-educated teenagers is pretty much useless. Unless of course, you are just trying to "build self-esteem" (the common euphemism for giving ignorance a pat on the head and a lunch-break).
"A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it. What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone."In Diderot's time, the question of what caused fire - liberation of phlogiston or something else - was a live debate in science. The existence of the luminiferous ether was a live possibility all the way up to the early 19th Century. An open mind, impartially considering both theories, was proper in his time.- Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784)
There have been many other scientific questions that were unresolved in the past, and an open mind that impartially considered all competing theories was indeed the proper approach.
As recently as 100 years ago (50 years after Origin of the Species), evolution was still being vigorously challenged by other theories of origins. But today, 100 years later, the debate is over. Deal with it the way that the proponents of phlogiston dealt with it. (How did the phlogiston activists deal with oxygen anyway?)
Or to put it another way, "evolution is a theory in crisis" is soooo 100 years ago.
Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. It is a description of an ongoing process that is observed all the time.
Make predictions based on intelligent design that would, if found false, cause you to at least question a belief in that idea. Tell me how to test these predictions. Test them. If these predictions are found to be true, then ID will be legitimate science. It is not legitimate science to just say, "evolution has problems. It's possible that intelligent design was at work in the creation of life." That is not enough to be taken seriously as science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.