"Creationism is not appropriate for children"

[Chizzang]

What is avoided by Biblical apologists and Fundamentalist defenders is this point:
To a large degree having a fundamentalist Religious attitude about the world and believing that the Bible is infallible word of god... is essentially saying: All that needs to be known is already known

It's an attitude of "we already know all we need to know"

I wish the churches offered up this simple motivating factor to their sheep - instead of The Bible is infallible

Children of God here is your test:
God wants you to discover the universe and uncover the mysteries of life and this world
The more you learn about the way the world and nature truly work the closer to God you are becoming

Instead we get JUST THE OPPOSITE approach
a War on Science and a War on advancement of Knowledge

[JohnStOnge]

We should teach our children to be critical thinkers. Creationism isn't critical thought.

Are we teaching our children to be critical thinkers when we say things like the theory of "intelligent design" can't be taught in public schools using the erroneous assertion that something has to be "falsifiable" in order to qualify as a theory because a 20th Century philosopher said so? Why are we afraid to have the rationale laid out and allow critical thinking with respect to it? Even if Karl Popper was correct in saying something has to be falsifiable to qualify as a theory (and he was not correct), why stifle thought by attempting to isolate young people from the arguments behind the concept?

Part of the "intelligent design" approach involves critical thinking with respect to the theory of evolution. If you want critical thinking, why are we opposed to that? If nothing else, we can have critical thinking about the critical thinking. Let the "intelligent design" adherence make their cases with things like the irreducibly complexity concept and let young people think about it.

The emotional devotion to evolutionary theory has taken on the characteristics of dogma every bit as intense as any religious dogma is. People who doubt it are heretics and are to be shunned. They are not to be allowed to offer their ideas and arguments in front of our vulnerable children. We appear to be trying to "protect" our children from heretical views just as the ancient Roman Catholic Church used to. Except we're not burning people at the stake for it. So on and so forth.

Again, I personally agree with the idea. I believe populations of single celled organisms did give rise to populations of multicellular organisms. I believe blue whales have ancestors that were singled celled organisms. I believe the process of natural selection and mutation is behind the speciation that led to the diversity of life we see today.

But I don't see any need, any practical reason, to assume this aggressive, dogmatic outlook that's become popular to assume.

[Vidav]

We should teach our children to be critical thinkers. Creationism isn't critical thought.

Are we teaching our children to be critical thinkers when we say things like the theory of "intelligent design" can't be taught in public schools using the erroneous assertion that something has to be "falsifiable" in order to qualify as a theory because a 20th Century philosopher said so? Why are we afraid to have the rationale laid out and allow critical thinking with respect to it? Even if Karl Popper was correct in saying something has to be falsifiable to qualify as a theory (and he was not correct), why stifle thought by attempting to isolate young people from the arguments behind the concept?

Part of the "intelligent design" approach involves critical thinking with respect to the theory of evolution. If you want critical thinking, why are we opposed to that? If nothing else, we can have critical thinking about the critical thinking. Let the "intelligent design" adherence make their cases with things like the irreducibly complexity concept and let young people think about it.

The emotional devotion to evolutionary theory has taken on the characteristics of dogma every bit as intense as any religious dogma is. People who doubt it are heretics and are to be shunned. They are not to be allowed to offer their ideas and arguments in front of our vulnerable children. We appear to be trying to "protect" our children from heretical views just as the ancient Roman Catholic Church used to. Except we're not burning people at the stake for it. So on and so forth.

Again, I personally agree with the idea. I believe populations of single celled organisms did give rise to populations of multicellular organisms. I believe blue whales have ancestors that were singled celled organisms. I believe the process of natural selection and mutation is behind the speciation that led to the diversity of life we see today.

But I don't see any need, any practical reason, to assume this aggressive, dogmatic outlook that's become popular to assume.

We should also teach all the conspiracy theories that expandos likes to post. Because you should teach the controversy and let the kids decide for themselves.

[Chizzang]

We should teach our children to be critical thinkers. Creationism isn't critical thought.

Are we teaching our children to be critical thinkers when we say things like the theory of "intelligent design" can't be taught in public schools using the erroneous assertion that something has to be "falsifiable" in order to qualify as a theory because a 20th Century philosopher said so? Why are we afraid to have the rationale laid out and allow critical thinking with respect to it? Even if Karl Popper was correct in saying something has to be falsifiable to qualify as a theory (and he was not correct), why stifle thought by attempting to isolate young people from the arguments behind the concept?

Part of the "intelligent design" approach involves critical thinking with respect to the theory of evolution. If you want critical thinking, why are we opposed to that? If nothing else, we can have critical thinking about the critical thinking. Let the "intelligent design" adherence make their cases with things like the irreducibly complexity concept and let young people think about it.

The emotional devotion to evolutionary theory has taken on the characteristics of dogma every bit as intense as any religious dogma is. People who doubt it are heretics and are to be shunned. They are not to be allowed to offer their ideas and arguments in front of our vulnerable children. We appear to be trying to "protect" our children from heretical views just as the ancient Roman Catholic Church used to. Except we're not burning people at the stake for it. So on and so forth.

Again, I personally agree with the idea. I believe populations of single celled organisms did give rise to populations of multicellular organisms. I believe blue whales have ancestors that were singled celled organisms. I believe the process of natural selection and mutation is behind the speciation that led to the diversity of life we see today.

But I don't see any need, any practical reason, to assume this aggressive, dogmatic outlook that's become popular to assume.

John... Because Intelligent Design is a religious perspective
It's like saying: "Because Jesus said so" also counts as critical thinking
No matter how much you SPIN John it's just not critical thinking...
It's Religion / not Science

As Dogmatic as Evolutionary Theory is - it is also observable science - John OBSERVABLE SCIENCE say that out loud
We've covered this

[Pwns]

We should teach our children to be critical thinkers. Creationism isn't critical thought.

It depends on how you think about it. It's one thing to say "The Bible said God created man and the heavens and the Earth and that is that".

As far as I'm concerned if you can't show me how the first self-replicating biomolecules formed from inorganic matter and how those molecules in turn formed the first cells and how those cells became the first multicellular organisms then believing in creationism is not the same thing as denying gravity exists. And of course ID isn't really scientifically testable, but who cares. The many-worlds hypothesis isn't either and no one would say that isn't science.

Which brings me to what Cleets says...

John... Because Intelligent Design is a religious perspective
It's like saying: "Because Jesus said so" also counts as critical thinking
No matter how much you SPIN John it's just not critical thinking...
It's Religion / not Science

As Dogmatic as Evolutionary Theory is - it is also observable science - John OBSERVABLE SCIENCE say that out loud
We've covered this

Evolution in terms of genetic drifts is observable. You can't hope to carry out a billion-year experiment to see if dust can spontaneously form intelligent life.

[JohnStOnge]

As Dogmatic as Evolutionary Theory is - it is also observable science - John OBSERVABLE SCIENCE

You got the "observable" part right. It is almost entirely observational study. There is a theory and the observations are generally consistent with the theory. It is not, by and large, experimental science. In fact one thing that bothers me is statements I've seen where people say that the overall theory of evolution is supported by countless experiments and that is an exaggeration.

To the intelligent design people, observations are likewise generally consistent with the theory.

[∞∞∞]

to see if dust can spontaneously form intelligent life.

We have been able to create new, self-replicating life (synthetic bacteria) out of chemicals for years now.

...You can't hope to carry out a billion-year experiment

Maybe not now, but it's certainly imaginable. If we want to stay world leaders in technology, we gotta keep thinkin' big and see if we can push the limit. In 200, 100, hell maybe even 50 years, why can't we have the ability to replicate a billion-years in a lab?

It is not, by and large, experimental science. In fact one thing that bothers me is statements I've seen where people say that the overall theory of evolution is supported by countless experiments and that is an exaggeration.

To the intelligent design people, observations are likewise generally consistent with the theory.

Evolution is a fact, but natural selection is the theory behind it. We can and do observe evolution in real-time with microorganisms.

[BlueHen86]

JSO and PWNS are exactly who Bill Nye is taking about. Evolution challenges their religion, so any lifeline, no matter how thin, is acceptable.

If you don't like evolution, come up with a better counter theory. If the best you've got is the Old Testament and the Brothers Grimm, you are raising your kids to be idiots.

[MSUDuo]

Evolution is a fact, but natural selection is the theory behind it. We can and do observe evolution in real-time with microorganisms.

Even as a Christian and believer in Creationism, I'll second that

[JohnStOnge]

JSO and PWNS are exactly who Bill Nye is taking about. Evolution challenges their religion, so any lifeline, no matter how thin, is acceptable.

If you don't like evolution, come up with a better counter theory. If the best you've got is the Old Testament and the Brothers Grimm, you are raising your kids to be idiots.

I won't speak for PWNS but I am not what he was talking about because 1) I am not a creationist, 2) I am an agnostic 3) I do not view the Bible as a history book, and 4) I believe the overall theory of evolution is basically correct.

My education was in biology and statistics and I exposed my kids to the concepts of biology, including the idea of evolution, from the time they were old enough to communicate. I talked to them about things like the age of the universe and the earth as well as the tenure of life on earth. I've done things like talk to my kids about how each of us represents an unbroken chain...a genetic line...reaching back over three billion years to the origin of life on this planet and how that is one more reason why I wanted to have kids...to keep the particular unique chain I'm part of going.

But the idea that having parents who believe in creationism teaching it to their kids is going to compromise the future or impair the ability of those kids to function effectively as things like engineers is absurd. About the only thing that holds potential to impair their ability to succeed in that regard is the dogmatic prejudice against them by those who embrace a religious fervor about evolutionary theory.

[BlueHen86]

JSO and PWNS are exactly who Bill Nye is taking about. Evolution challenges their religion, so any lifeline, no matter how thin, is acceptable.

If you don't like evolution, come up with a better counter theory. If the best you've got is the Old Testament and the Brothers Grimm, you are raising your kids to be idiots.

I won't speak for PWNS but I am not what he was talking about because 1) I am not a creationist, 2) I am an agnostic 3) I do not view the Bible as a history book, and 4) I believe the overall theory of evolution is basically correct.

My education was in biology and statistics and I exposed my kids to the concepts of biology, including the idea of evolution, from the time they were old enough to communicate. I talked to them about things like the age of the universe and the earth as well as the tenure of life on earth. I've done things like talk to my kids about how each of us represents an unbroken chain...a genetic line...reaching back over three billion years to the origin of life on this planet and how that is one more reason why I wanted to have kids...to keep the particular unique chain I'm part of going.

But the idea that having parents who believe in creationism teaching it to their kids is going to compromise the future or impair the ability of those kids to function effectively as things like engineers is absurd. About the only thing that holds potential to impair their ability to succeed in that regard is the dogmatic prejudice against them by those who embrace a religious fervor about evolutionary theory.

Well then, by all means teach them creationism. Teach them George R. R. Martin and J. R. R. Tolkein while you are at it, it won't hurt them in the long run, I'm sure they will be fine scientists.

[MSUDuo]

Nm

[JohnStOnge]

Well then, by all means teach them creationism. Teach them George R. R. Martin and J. R. R. Tolkein while you are at it, it won't hurt them in the long run, I'm sure they will be fine scientists.

Unless they want to be biologists who study evolution in particular...which of course they wouldn't be if they don't accept the theory of evolution...they can indeed be fine scientists without believing in the theory of evolution. That is the point. It's not that important in practical terms.

[BlueHen86]

Well then, by all means teach them creationism. Teach them George R. R. Martin and J. R. R. Tolkein while you are at it, it won't hurt them in the long run, I'm sure they will be fine scientists.

Unless they want to be biologists who study evolution in particular...which of course they wouldn't be if they don't accept the theory of evolution...they can indeed be fine scientists without believing in the theory of evolution. That is the point. It's not that important in practical terms.

Sure. Be sure to tell them that in the future we will wear the same uniform, communicate via universal translators, travel via warp drive and that dilithium crystals will solve all of our energy problems. That shouldn't impede their progress as biologists in any way, as long as they don't end up wearing a red uniform.

[kalm]

What is avoided by Biblical apologists and Fundamentalist defenders is this point:
To a large degree having a fundamentalist Religious attitude about the world and believing that the Bible is infallible word of god... is essentially saying: All that needs to be known is already known

It's an attitude of "we already know all we need to know"

I wish the churches offered up this simple motivating factor to their sheep - instead of The Bible is infallible

Children of God here is your test:
God wants you to discover the universe and uncover the mysteries of life and this world
The more you learn about the way the world and nature truly work the closer to God you are becoming

Instead we get JUST THE OPPOSITE approach
a War on Science and a War on advancement of Knowledge

I've been thinking about this one for a couple days now and gawdamn that is profound.

[Chizzang]

What is avoided by Biblical apologists and Fundamentalist defenders is this point:
To a large degree having a fundamentalist Religious attitude about the world and believing that the Bible is infallible word of god... is essentially saying: All that needs to be known is already known

It's an attitude of "we already know all we need to know"

I wish the churches offered up this simple motivating factor to their sheep - instead of The Bible is infallible

Children of God here is your test:
God wants you to discover the universe and uncover the mysteries of life and this world
The more you learn about the way the world and nature truly work the closer to God you are becoming

Instead we get JUST THE OPPOSITE approach
a War on Science and a War on advancement of Knowledge

I've been thinking about this one for a couple days now and gawdamn that is profound.

Were that in the Bible - we'd be a vastly different planet today - VASTLY DIFFERENT
And by the way that sentiment is what Galileo believed and he was under house arrest because of it

[houndawg]

I've been thinking about this one for a couple days now and gawdamn that is profound.

Were that in the Bible - we'd be a vastly different planet today - VASTLY DIFFERENT
And by the way that sentiment is what Galileo believed and he was under house arrest because of it

Truly astonishing how the church was able to sell the riff that all humans are descended from one man and one woman. Who had two sons.

You'd think that would have raised a few eyebrows...

[Chizzang]

Were that in the Bible - we'd be a vastly different planet today - VASTLY DIFFERENT
And by the way that sentiment is what Galileo believed and he was under house arrest because of it

Truly astonishing how the church was able to sell the riff that all humans are descended from one man and one woman. Who had two sons.

You'd think that would have raised a few eyebrows...

but you see...
Science has shown us what we did not understand back then - back then they didn't know genetics didn't work like that today we know better - thus - The more we learn about how the world works and Science THE CLOSER WE ARE TO GOD

Knowledge is NOT THE ENEMY OF GOD
Knowledge is only the enemy of of those who would keep you from God
To know this world and all of it's secrets - is to know GOD
To Think that restricting knowledge and hanging on to ancient ignorance and fear keeps you closer to god is a LIE of the greatest order


Thus ends the sermon for today...

[BlueHen86]

Truly astonishing how the church was able to sell the riff that all humans are descended from one man and one woman. Who had two sons.

You'd think that would have raised a few eyebrows...

but you see...
Science has shown us what we did not understand back then - back then they didn't know genetics didn't work like that today we know better - thus - The more we learn about how the world works and Science THE CLOSER WE ARE TO GOD

Knowledge is NOT THE ENEMY OF GOD
Knowledge is only the enemy of of those who would keep you from God
To know this world and all of it's secrets - is to know GOD
To Think that restricting knowledge and hanging on to ancient ignorance and fear keeps you closer to god is a LIE of the greatest order

Thus ends the sermon for today...

But you can still believe that lie and be a good biologist; so wake the kids, it's story time.

[kalm]

but you see...
Science has shown us what we did not understand back then - back then they didn't know genetics didn't work like that today we know better - thus - The more we learn about how the world works and Science THE CLOSER WE ARE TO GOD

Knowledge is NOT THE ENEMY OF GOD
Knowledge is only the enemy of of those who would keep you from God
To know this world and all of it's secrets - is to know GOD
To Think that restricting knowledge and hanging on to ancient ignorance and fear keeps you closer to god is a LIE of the greatest order

Thus ends the sermon for today...

But you can still believe that lie and be a good biologist; so wake the kids, it's story time.

Nice work on both your parts here.

[CID1990]

Were that in the Bible - we'd be a vastly different planet today - VASTLY DIFFERENT
And by the way that sentiment is what Galileo believed and he was under house arrest because of it

Truly astonishing how the church was able to sell the riff that all humans are descended from one man and one woman. Who had two sons.

You'd think that would have raised a few eyebrows...

Interestingly enough, I read a few years back about how our distant ancestors once nearly became extinct... what would become the human race was reduced to just a few hundred individuals in what is now Sahel Africa. This was several hundred thousand years ago, and in theory we are all descended from one or two couples from that period. These would be the "Eves" that scientists are looking for. It is amazing if you think about it.

Cleets I agree with everything you said.

BTW I literally don't know anyone personally who takes the whole literal reading thing seriously. I know they are out there, but I just don't know any personally. Believe me when I say, given where I grew up.. if they were as legion as some people suggest I would know a sh1tload of them (and I would avoid them like the plague).

[BlueHen86]

[BlueHen86]

[BlueHen86]

[BlueHen86]