Happy Atheist Forum

Religion => Creationism/Intelligent Design => Topic started by: Squid on January 21, 2010, 01:28:00 AM

Title: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Squid on January 21, 2010, 01:28:00 AM
This is a blog I typed up and am posting today.  It'll be up at my Neurognosis Wordpress blog and my blog I have by the same name on my hometown newspaper's website.  I think it has some good info people may find interesting and/or informative.  Lemme know what you think:

**NOTE: The author of the article's comments I am rebutting appear in RED**

A guest article appeared in the Victoria Advocate, titled “Why Shouldn’t We Teach Creationism”.  I feel compelled to address some inaccuracies that appeared in this article.  While I could spend time addressing the historical “support” cited, I’d rather stick to the science which is at the heart of the question “why shouldn’t we teach creationism”.

“The other main argument is that creation is religion and evolution is science.  Balderdash!”

Creationism has its basis in religion and not in objective, evidence-based inquiry.  The very tenets of creationism are based upon the stories and letters collectively known as the Judeo-Christian Bible.  The very core of creationism is derived from the book of Genesis (part of the Torah) which supposedly recounts the creation of the universe, Earth and all life by a deity.  To claim that creationism is not religion is “balderdash”.  Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory - a theory which has stood up to much scrutiny for well over 100 years.

However, if we’re going to talk about what is and isn’t science, let’s examine the concept of a theory.  Let’s understand what a theory is in the scientific context.

There is much confusion right off the bat when people speak of evolutionary theory.  There is a vast difference in the meaning of the word “theory” in the colloquial sense and the usage of the term in the scientific sense.

 The lay or popular culture definition of the word theory is, “an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” (Pickett, 2001).
Such a definition is often thought to apply when one speaks of a scientific theory; that it is merely conjecture or a "guess" on the part of scientists.  This is not at all accurate.  That colloquial definition is not applicable in regards to a scientific theory.  Which is described as:

 â€œA set of statements or principles devised to explain a group facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” (Pickett, 2001).

The construction of a scientific theory takes much more than simply coming up with an idea. Theories are built over time through methodological inquiry.  As the mathematician Poincare (1905) stated in his La Science et l'hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis), “Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house”.  Poincare’s point was the importance of a theoretical framework which can organize the facts in a useful way.

Science philosopher Patrick Suppes (1967) states that theories are of two parts: one part “logical calculus” and a second part called the “co-ordinating definitions”.  He notes that theories are dependent upon constituent parts - statistical and experimental methodology being amongst these parts.  He also notes in his conclusion that, “testing the fundamental theory is an essential ingredient of any sophisticated scientific discipline” (p. 64).

What did Suppes mean by “logical calculus”?  The logical calculus consists of the base axioms (as Suppes referred to them) or rather the facts with which the theoretical framework is constructed â€" as in Poincare’s example, the stones with which the house is built.  Therefore the coordinating definitions are the “empirical interpretations” as Suppes calls them which would be the product of the experimental and statistical methodologies.

In a paper about scientific understanding, Michael Friedman (1974) makes a statement in which he is agreeing with C.G. Hempel and says, “the philosopher of science should be interested in an objective notion of explanation, a notion that doesn’t vary capacriously from individual to individual” (p. 7).  Such is true for science and the building of theories â€" ask different biologists what the theory of evolution is and you’ll get similar answers from them all â€" some wording will be different and some aspects may be highlighted more than others but an agreement nonetheless.  This is evident when we look at definitions for evolutionary theory from different sources.

Audesirk et al. (2002) provides the definition:

“the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next”

Futuyma (1986):

“Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.”

Jurmain, Nelson, Kilgore & Trevathan (2000):

“a scientific theory of orgnismal change over time originally developed by Charles Darwin; it embodies the ideas that species alive today are descendants of species living long ago, and that species have changed and diverged from one another over billions of years; the process of change over time by which existing populations of organisms develop from ancestral form through modification of their characteristics.”

Drickamer, Vessey & Jakob (2002):

“Genetic change in a population of organisms over time (generations)”

We get consistent concepts with varying amounts of detail but all the same concept â€" Drickamer et al.’s being the tersest.  We don’t have a capriciously (impulsively, arbitrarily) varying concept.  This definition is a summarized representation of the theoretical framework of evolutionary theory which is built up with those stones of knowledge.  But do we know if evolution is a robust theory?  Is it a strong theory?  Are there criteria by which scientific theories can be assessed?  There sure is.

Based upon criteria put forth by people such as Kuhn (1977), Blalock (1969) and Dubin (1978), Prochaska, Wright and Velicer (2008) assembled a model for testing theories.  Their testing model consists of 11 criteria by which a theory can be evaluated.  Those criteria are:

1.   Clarity
2.   Consistency
3.   Parsimony
4.   Testable
5.   Empirical Adequacy
a.   Predictive Power
b.   Explanatory Power
6.   Productivity
7.   Generalizable
8.   Integration
9.   Utility
10.   Practical
11.   Impact

If we look at these criteria as described by Prochaska et al., we can evaluate whether or not a theory is decidedly robust or in dire need of reformulation.  I won’t take the time to extensively evaluate evoltuonary theory with that testing model.  However, I can take a few criteria and compare how evolutionary theory and creationism compare on each criterion.

 First, we’ll look at clarity of the theory.  Prochaska et al. have defined this criterion by stating:

“Has well-defined terms that are operationalized and explicit and internally consistent.  Explicit propositions are preferred.  Assumptions, propositions, and concepts have definitions that are consistent, not redundant, and concepts have content and construct validity” (p. 565).

Evolutionary theory has many terms which have specific definitions, many of which are often a source of confusion for those who are not familiar with them.  Natural selection, for instance, is a well known term but many are unfamiliar with its definition.  Many people will automatically reference the colloquialism “survival of the fittest”, however, with an incorrect conceptualization of the phrase as it pertains to evolutionary theory.  In evolution being “fit” does not necessarily equate to being the fastest, strongest or biggest.  Evolutionary fitness boils down to propagation of the genes â€" those who create the most offspring are the fittest (Drickamer, Vessey & Jakob, 2002).  Natural selection itself is defined formally as:

 â€œthe unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces, resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations.  Usually, natural selection refers specifically to differential survival and reproduction on the basis of genetic differences among individuals” (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers, 2002, p. G-16).

This definition says nothing about being the strongest or fastest in relation to what natural selection is.  It does specifically make note of reproduction and genetic differences as they related to differential survival of organisms.  This definition of different concepts is consistent throughout the evolutionary biology literature and the knowledge of the process has been expanded and further investigated through many years of research in the field.  Therefore, evolution does have clear and operationalized definitions, it is simply that those who receive or produce inaccurate information may find them lacking clarity.

How about creationism?  Does it meet the standards of this criterion?  Well, it differs greatly with mainstream science on aspects which are extremely important such as the concept of species, for instance.   The scientific community makes use of the biological species concept which has a particular, operationalized definition.  Now, it must be noted that this is only utilized with sexually reproducing organisms as those organisms which reproduce asexually must be classified by a different criteria.   For example, bacteria are often classified utilizing molecular systematics (Olsen, Woese & Overbeek, 1994).

However, for brevity, I will only refer to the BSC.  The biological species concept outlines the criteria for determining what constitutes a species. Mayr (2001), comments on the BSC, stating:

“(1) species are composed of populations, and (2) populations are conspecific if they successfully interbreed with each other. This reasoning resulted in the so-called biological species concept (BSC): ‘Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.’ In other words, a species is a reproductive community. Its reproductive isolation is effected by so-called isolating mechanisms, that is, by properties of individuals that prevent (or make unsuccessful) the interbreeding with individuals of other speices” (p. 167)

Creation “scientists” have a system called baraminology based upon the biblical concept of a “kind” of animal.  In some instances the word kind is used interchangeably with “species”, however this is not in keeping with the scientific definition of species as baraminologists have their own methods for classification based upon the use statistical analysis (basically an attempt at the statistical procedure of cluster analysis) of basic morphology (i.e., beaks, wings, four legs) (Wood, 2008a). The problem with baraminology, as with creationism as a whole, is that it starts with a predefined conclusion and works with the “evidence” to make it fit that immutable conclusion.  One glaring instance is an article written by baraminology “researcher” Todd Charles Wood (a Biochemist by training) for the website Answers in Genesis.  In the article about horse species, Wood (2008b) states:

“In the meantime, new horse species arose, displaying designs that God had placed into horses at the creation.  The successful horses were those pre-designed for cooler climates (larger body size), the eating of gritty grass (huge, thick-enameled teeth), and moving swiftly on an open range (long legs and other designs for speed).”

This “making the evidence fit the conclusion” tactic is also blatantly obvious is a paper published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly journal in 1998.  Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998) were looking at “quantitative” methodologies for use in baraminology.  The statement made in their abstract shows exactly what I have stated as presupposition of the conclusion:

“We have found that barminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin.  Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates”.

The authors essentially rejected anything that did not fit their preconceived notion of what the answer should be and defaulted to a vaguer concept of clustering according how something “looks”.  This is not science no matter how you dress it up.

The term “kind” if often used interchangeably with “species”, but this is not the scientific concept as laid out by the biological species concept.  The kinds they refer to are those initially created kinds of animals which may have changed some over time according to how God “pre-designed” them.  Therefore, the concept of a “kind” or “species” within creationism is very vague and based upon an elementary idea that if two things look alike then they must be the same “kind”.

This all leads into the next criterion (which I mentioned previously) of “consistency” which Prochaska et al. define as:

“The components do not contradict each other.  The definitions are consistent with assumptions.  There is fit between concepts and propositions and concepts and clinical exemplars” (p. 565).

By the very nature of how evolutionary theory is constructed, the components must work together as it is a massive, dynamic process which emerges as a consequence of its constituent processes such as the different types of selection, mutation and so forth.  Often people will bring up the concept of punctuated equilibrium and present this as a displacer for phyletic gradualism â€" however, this is usually, again, another instance where an inaccurate understanding of the items being discussed comes into play.  A common mistake is to see PE as a complete replacement to phyletic gradualism proposed by Darwin (1896).  Indeed, even their original paper carried the title, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism” yet the title can be misleading.  The idea PE proposed did not seek to replace phyletic gradualism completely but only attack the assumption that it was the only model of change at work.  The idea Gould and Eldredge put forth was based heavily on Ernst Mayr’s “geographic speciation” â€" more commonly known today as allopatric speciation in which geographic isolation served to separate portions of a population from the whole and subsequently rapid change in the smaller population over time would occur â€" what Mayr (1954) called the “conspicuous divergence of peripherally isolated populations” (p. 158). Seizing upon this idea as a springboard, Gould and Eldredge saw these peripherally isolated populations as hotbeds of rapid evolutionary activity where cladogenesis would occur (divergence of a parent species into daughter species).  They proposed that this would account for inconsistencies seen in the fossil record when viewed through the filter of gradualism.  Over the years since the Gould and Eldredge paper, it has been confirmed empirically that both gradualism and PE are portions of the same process of evolutionary change (Pagel, Venditti & Meade, 2006).

Next we’ll jump into a central criterion for scientific theories, testability.  Prochaska et al. explain this criterion further by stating:

“The propositions can be tested.  Has the potential to generate empirical evidence.  Has the potential to be falsifiable or refuted.”

Evolutionary theory has volumes of empirical research in support of it from several different disciplines and sub-disciplines.  Can evolution be tested and has it?  Yes and of course it has.  Examples?  Sure.  Let’s look at the idea of divergence of clades.  Evolutionary theory predicts that two species should become less similar the further away from their last common ancestor (LCA).  Therefore we should see greater similarity between modern humans and chimpanzees than we would bacteria â€" okay that one’s pretty obvious.  So what supports this idea empirically aside from the obvious?  How about cytochrome c?    What it is?  It’s a hemoprotein, that is, a protein which includes a heme (a portion containing iron) which makes it capable of undergoing oxidation and reduction.  Cytochrome c (cyt c) is involved in electron transport and is usually membrane bound.  It is found in eukaryotes most typically in the inner mitochondrial membrane (Campbell and Ferrell, 2003).

So why does this make a difference evolutionarily?  Because of the greatly conserved nature of cyt c.  You’ll find that humans and chimpanzees have identical molecules while comparing us to other species will show more differences as we move away evolutionarily.  The sequencing of cyt c has been used for many years to examine evolutionary divergence of organisms (Strahler, 1987; Curtis and Barnes, 1994).  As to the divergence of bacteria and human cyt c, we can check this against the Protein Information Resource which was started in 1984 by the National Biomedical Research Foundation.
 
A search of the Homo sapiens sapiens (shortened to just Homo sapiens in the database) cytochrome c sequence will provide us with the percentage of similarity with other particular organisms.  We find, as would be expected evolutionarily, that humans do not differ from the other great apes such as chimpanzees but we do differ (PIR, 2009) by one amino acid with Rhesus monkeys which have tyrosine instead of isoleucine (Strahler, 1987; PIR, 2009).  Now when we examine the shared sequence percentage (utilizing BLAST) between Homo sapiens sapiens and R. rubrum, it is 36.36% (PIR, 2009).  As predicted by evolutionary theory Humans are similar to our closest cousins, chimpanzees and only differ by one amino acid to our further away cousins, the Rhesus monkeys.  However, we differ greatly compared to the anaerobic gram negative bacteria R. rubrum from which our clades diverged on the order of billions of years ago.

Along with the cytochrome c evidence, we have a more robust measure of divergence between clades â€" genetic comparison.  The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium did this in 2005 when they did a comparison of the human and chimp genomes and provided a divergence of ~1.23% between the two on a base by base comparison of the over 3 billion bases. This verified earlier studies which concluded nearly exact figures independently (Chen and Li, 2001; Ebersberger, Metzler, Schwarz & Paabo, 2002).  Here we can also dive into another criterion provided by Prochaska et al. â€" “predictive power” as a sub-criterion of “Empirical Adequacy”.  Evolution would predict that those species of extinct hominids that originated before modern humans would be evolutionarily between the chimpanzee clade than would modern humans.  Was this prediction verified?  Yes it was.  With an analysis of extracted Neanderthal nuclear DNA which found that Neanderthals did not sync up with modern humans nor chimpanzees but fell in between with a skewness toward modern humans â€" Neanderthals showing 99.5% similarity to modern humans compared to the 98.77% similarity with chimpanzees (Noonan et al., 2006; Green et al., 2006; Green et al., 2009).  This also confirmed earlier genetic work showing Neanderthals were a separate, but very closely related, species from modern humans (Krings et al., 1997; Scholz et al., 2000).

What about creationism?  Can it be tested?  In a scientific context, it would be difficult to next to impossible.  For instance, let’s forego the origins of the universe as this isn’t relevant to the discussion about evolution.  Let’s focus on where modern science and creationism clash.  Creationism posits that species are essentially static â€" populations do not change but “variation within a kind” (Morris, 1974) is accepted.  If we utilized the view of one of the “pioneering” baraminologists Todd Wood, we can examine his statement which I cited earlier:

“In the meantime, new horse species arose, displaying designs that God had placed into horses at the creation.  The successful horses were those pre-designed for cooler climates (larger body size), the eating of gritty grass (huge, thick-enameled teeth), and moving swiftly on an open range (long legs and other designs for speed).”

How can this be tested?  How can you test to see if a deity “placed designs” into horses?  I’m sure someone would venture an answer but to be able to show, empirically, a supernatural being predestined ancient horses to appear as they do now is beyond scientific inquiry and therefore NOT science.  The current evidence points toward evolution through natural selection not predestination through divine guidance.  This idea harkens back to Aristotle’s  scala naturae view of nature.  While it served as his attempt at organizing life into groups and is one of the first attempts at taxonomy, it is nonetheless, wrong.  Evolution in nature has no predestined goal, no achievement to shoot for.  It is a continual, unyielding process.  Professor Paul Olsen (2004) points to some underlying motivations for this ladder concept stating that it, "supported feudal social stratification as well as putting everything in its place - we still have strong vestiges of that concept."

One last criterion I would like to touch on would be “Utility”.  As would be assumed, Prochaska et al. have described it as providing “service and is useable”.  Is evolution useful?  Does it provide a service?  Absolutely.  What things are influenced and find a basis in evolutionary theory?  Let’s see:

•   Bioinformatics (Futuyma 1995)
•   Drug resistance management (Bull and Wichman 2001)
•   Fisheries (Conover and Munch 2002)
•   Drug discovery (Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003)
•   Epidemiology (Bull and Wichman 2001; Vogel 1998; Gaschen et al. 2002; Relman 1999)
•   Molecular “Breeding” (Arnold 2001)
•   Engineering (Marczyk 2004)

What about creationism?  What has applied creationism scientifically produced that is useful?  The count is zero.  This is because creationism is not science, it is not based in science and therefore it has no place in the science classroom.  I’m not saying creationism need be banned from schools, not at all, but put it in an area where it belongs such as in religious studies or philosophy and not in science classes.

“We need to come to grips with the fact that science can only examine what is in the present.
It cannot look back into the past and certainly cannot look into the future. Educated assumptions can be made, but that is what they are, assumptions. To make an assumption pertaining to the past, you have to start with a frame of reference or belief. Belief: Sounds like religion doesn't it?”

Science is a process of inquiry that it not restricted to simple direct observation in the immediate moment.  The very term “observation” is often equivocated due to the fact that it has a specific meaning within a scientific context.  To observe in science does not necessarily mean that one must physically “see” something with their eyes; this is one means of “direct observation”.  Processes and instruments have been developed to extend our ability to observe far beyond our own sensory capabilities.  We can observe trends in populations by examining various forms of data.  We can create reconstructions based upon collected data and even make predictions.  To say that science is only limited to the “here and now” and anything outside of this is pure “assumption” is an unfounded claim.

Observation within science does not necessarily always mean something is seen by a scientist as it is happening, like you would think of Jane Goodall observing her chimps.  Observation can take more forms than just that example.  You need not see a process in its entirety to investigate its validity.  You have more than one type of observation.  Direct observation is not the only means of data acquisition which science utilizes, to declare such alludes to a poverty in understanding of how science works (Pennock, 1999).

The idea of observation presented here is more of the philosophical idea of sensory assimilation.  Scientific observation is more complex than that, as are the methodologies for tackling questions.  This is intimated by Solomon (1998) when he states, “It would be a mistake, however, to think of science as nothing but the gathering and testing of facts through experience”.

The laymanistic concept of observation is to watch â€" to “see” something occur as an active observer with one’s own eyes. Such is based on a version of scientific methodology in simplified terms everyone is introduced to as a child and continually given throughout much of their public education. However, observation in science is not that simplistic.

Observation itself in the context of science is not limited to seeing the “here and now”. Were it to be limited by this, our knowledge itself would be severely limited.

Observation can be divided into two major categories â€" direct and indirect. Direct observation would encompass the “here and now” idea. An example, as mentioned previously, would be a primatologist such as Jane Goodall observing her chimps in their day to day activities. Another would be a chemist observing a reaction directly.

Much of what is observed in science is not a “here and now” observation of a process. Plate tectonics is an example. We cannot actively sit and watch the continental plates move and shift â€" they move too slowly, a few centimeters per year. Our observations from many other aspects of the process are culled together to provide us with the information on this process. Such is the same for evolution. We have indirect observation of a larger process.

Also, let it not be misunderstood that evolution happened only “in the past”. It is a continual process which continues on even now. Allele frequencies can be observed in populations rising to prominence over time such as a study done over a 30 year period of the Galapagos finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant (Grant & Grant, 2005). It would be ridiculous for someone to sit and watch for 30 years a population of finches â€" it wouldn’t seem as though anything had taken place either due to our perceptual abilities therefore we develop methods to “show” us this taking place just as physicists developed the double slit experiment to examine the concept of particle/wave duality.

Geologists cannot sit and watch most of the processes they study take place â€" they occur over “geological time” in most instances and is far beyond the lifetime of a human being. Science is an inductive process for the most part. Parts are taken to give us a picture of the whole â€" hence the often used “puzzle” analogy.
Now, are observations made in evolutionary research? Of course they are â€" both direct and indirect. Direct observations can come in the form of experimental observations made in, say, ecology with the migration and movement of animal groups.  And indirect such as genetic testing and comparison in which we can infer things such as divergence between two clades as I showed earlier with the genome comparisons.  Here we also have examples of independent verification through experimentation and observation.

“Evolution references are a long time frame and that is obvious by the large spans of time they give to all their discoveries, primarily because the methods used to measure time are inaccurate.”

Evolutionary processes work on long and short time frames depending on the organism populations and environments involved.  Populations of bacteria can evolve much faster than a population of humans.  There is no set “time frame” for evolutionary change with some change being gradual and some being short bursts offset by long periods of relative stasis (Pagel, Venditti & Meade, 2006).  Mostly this is referring to the appearance of higher taxa usually referred to as “macroevolution” which is simply evolution at or above the species level (Mayr, 2001).  Microevolution which is evolution below the species level is often not thought of as part of the evolutionary process as it is unequivocally demonstrated by items such as antibiotic resistance.  However, by the very definition of evolution, “the descent of modern organisms with modification from pre-existing life-forms…” (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers, 2002), microevolution is evolution just as is macroevolution.

The mention of “methods” of measurement is vague as I cannot infer what exactly he is referring to.  If creation precedence is to be invoked then it is most likely a reference to the various scientific dating methodologies such as radiometric dating.  However, the accusation that these methods are inaccurate is a consequence of a poverty of knowledge and understanding on the subject.  In a comment upon a letter to the editor of the Victoria Advocate titled, “Commenting on Creationism”, we find some clarification:

“Scientifically, the carbon dating process IS flawed - and unreliable past 30,000 - 40,000 years. The science community KNOWS this and uses other dating methods when the numbers don't match up. Carbon dating is like looking at a candle and estimating how long it was before it started burning. You don't know how long it was to start with, or if conditions in the room have changed (was there less oxygen an hour ago? Was there any wind? was the wax in the top part of the candle the same as what's left?)”

To say the radiocarbon dating process is “flawed” is incorrect.  If radiometric dating were “flawed” this technique would be useless and the amount of time, money and effort researchers put into it would be for naught.  The idea that researchers would continue to knowingly utilize a completely unreliable methodology is a tad bit ridiculous and there is ample evidence to support the usage of radiometric dating.

The process has been continually checked against reference data in the published literature as well as shared within the scientific community and public at international conferences (Boaretto et al., 2002; Pazdur, Fogtman, Michczynski & Pawlyta, 2003; Scott, Cook, Naysmith, Bryant & O’Donnell, 2007).  

He is correct in that radiocarbon dating begins to lose accuracy past a particular timeframe.  The current techniques push the time boundary for accurate dating using the radiocarbon method to approximately 60,000 years (Plastino, Kaihola, Bartolomei & Bella, 2001).  Some conditions may contribute to anomalous dates and these have appeared in the published literature (which many evolution opponents mistakenly cite as support for their position) and strict guidelines for testing procedures and what materials can be tested have been established (Long, 1990; Scott, 2003).  Radiocarbon dating is not the only method utilized by scientists for dating samples.  Other techniques â€" relative and absolute are utilized and often more than one technique is utilized.  There are several methods of radiometric dating available â€" C14 dating is not the only dating method employed by researchers and it is only able to be utilized on particular samples.  For example, Geochron Laboratories (n.d.) in Cambridge, Massachusetts gives the following list of samples for dating:

“Materials suitable for radiocarbon dating include charcoal, wood and other plant matter, soils and sediments, shells, bone, carbonates, dissolved inorganic carbonate (DIC), methane and hydrocarbons, and food products.”

You will often find relative and absolute dating methodology utilized to come to the most accurate date for specimens as well.  The technique is calibrated against other dating methodologies independent from radiocarbon such as dendrochronology, ice cores, ocean sediments, varves and coral.  This all converges to provide a calibration curve with which the most accurate date can be found for a sample.  Studies examining the methodology of calibration have found that they are all in general agreement (Aitchison et al., 1989; Stein et al., 2000; Bard et al., 2004).

Radiometric dating techniques have been shown time and time again to yield similar results not only amongst different techniques but also in comparison to other dating methodology such as dendrochronology, electron spin resonance, fluorine analysis, and paleomagnetism (also known as archaeomagnetic dating).  One example would be the Fen Complex in Norway.  It has been dated by various means by independent researchers over a period of many years and all have yielded similar results:

Ar40/Ar39 â€" 588 +/- 10 Ma. (Meert et al, 1998)
K/Ar â€" 575 +/- 25 Ma. (Verschure et al., 1983)
Rb/Sr â€" 578- +/- 24 Ma. (Dahlgreen, 1994)
Th/Pb â€" 570-590 Ma. (Saether, 1958)
K/Ar â€" 565 Ma. (Faul et al, 1959)

These radiometric findings also agree with the paleomagnetic findings as well, with no disagreement in any case.  Also, utilizing isochron methods from multiple samples gives added reliability which utilizes the statistical methodology of linear regression.

The calculation of dates relies upon the decay rate which occurs in a predictable fashion.  The amount of parent isotope is compared to the amount of the daughter isotope thus giving us the ability to calculate the original isotope amount with the known decay rate.  Utilizing the isochron dating method, the problem of original “amount” is circumvented by the use of other non-radiogenic isotopes (which can also be used with samples that may be contaminated as well) (Schwarcz, 1997).  The decay rates can be directly measured as has been done for Rb/Sr.  Davis (1977) measured the decay rate over a period of 19 years with 20g samples.  This gave him a sample from which to calculate the decay rate since just a milligram contains ~1018 atoms.  Also, in a large study of decay rates encompassing many experiments attempting to alter decay rates, Emery, (1972) found that the decay rates of beta and alpha decay to be “firmly established”.  Not to mention that neutrino bombardment in nuclear fission reactors does not affect the uranium decay rate of the unfissioned uranium which squashes the argument of neutrino affects upon decay (Shure, 1983).  Therefore the candle analogy is fallacious as a faulty comparison.

We also have extensive consistency within methodology for determination of the age of the Earth (which is often a point brought up in debate surrounding creationism) using not only terrestrial but extraterrestrial samples to arrive at the age of ~4.5 billion years old for the Earth (Plummer et al., 2003; Strahler, 1987; Monroe and Wincander, 2001; Jacobsen, 2003).  Many different methodologies â€" many, many independent assessments on different samples and they all are in agreement for the general age of the Earth.  This is something which cannot be ignored or rationalized away.  Faulty dating methods would not yield such consistency.

Let’s also understand what C14 is and a bit about the basics of decay.  Radiocarbon dating itself is explained succinctly by Ebbing (1996):

“Carbon dating (also called radiocarbon dating, C-14 dating) is a radiometric dating method.  Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope which has a half life of 5730 years.  This isotope is continually created within our own atmosphere due to the constant incursion of cosmic rays upon the earth.  It is the “collision of a neutron with a nitrogen-14 nucleus (the most abundant nitrogen nuclide) that can produce a carbon-14 nucleus”

And what exactly is the basis for radiometric dating? This has to do with the physics of these radioactive isotopes and how they behave in a particular and predictable way in their decay:

“The rate of decay of radioactive isotopes is uniform and is not affected by changes in pressure, temperature, or the chemical environment.  Therefore, once a quantity of radioactive nuclides has been incorporated into a growing mineral crystal, that quantity will begin to decay at a steady rate with a definite percentage of the radiogenic atoms undergoing decay in each increment of time.  Each radioactive isotope has a particular mode of decay and a unique decay rate.” (Levin, 1999)

Plummer et al (2003) discusses the radioactive decay of isotopes:

“Radioactive decay is the spontaneous nuclear change of isotopes with unstable nuclei.  Energy is produced with radioactive decay.  Emissions from radioactive elements can be detected by a Geiger counter or similar device, and, in high concentrations, can kill humans.

Nuclei of radioactive isotopes change primarily in three ways.  An alpha emission is the ejection of two protons and two neutrons from a nucleus.  When an alpha emission takes place the atomic number of the atom is reduced by two and its atomic mass number is reduced by four.  After an alpha emission, U-238 becomes Th-234, which has an atomic number of 90.  The original isotope (U-238) is referred to as the parent isotope.  The new isotope (Th-234) is the daughter product.

Beta emissions involve the release of an electron from a nucleus.  To understand this, we need to explain that electrons, which have virtually no mass and are usually in orbit around the nucleus, are also in the nucleus as part of a neutron.  A neutron is a proton with an electron inside of it, thus it is electrically neutral.  If an electron is emitted from a neutron during radioactive decay, the neutron becomes a proton and the atom’s atomic number is increased by one.
The third mode of change is electron capture, whereby a proton in the nucleus captures an orbiting electron.  The proton becomes a neutron.  The atom becomes a different element having an atomic number one less than its parent isotope.”
Abell (1983) explains some additional points of half lives:

“...the earth’s crust contains radioactive elements that decay slowly.  Among these are potassium 40, which decays to argon 40 with a half life of 1,250 million years, rubidium 87, which decays to strontium 87 with a half life of 4,880 million years, and uranium 238, which decays through a series of elements (including radium) to lead 206 with a half life of 4,470 million years.”

And while radiocarbon can have environmental confounds, Brush (1983) touches on one of the most important traits of radiometric dating utilizing other isotopes (specifically referring to uranium isotopes):

“As far as is known, chemical or geological processes cannot change the relative abundances of these isotopes.”

As was stated before, it is often offered that there are reports of anomalous dates obtain and those making this argument are not incorrect.  However, when they claim this and merge it with the claim that the methodology is unreliable then their stance becomes untenable.  For example, I have been offered the claim that a specific article from Science shows radiocarbon dating to “not work” because the researchers obtained unexplained, anomalous dates.  However, apparently unknown to the person making this assertion, the cause of the off dates was shown in the very same paper and explained why this occurred when the paper was published back in 1963.  The specific claim was that researchers found shells of living mollusks (from river beds) that were dated to be 2,300 years old and therefore shows that radiocarbon dating is “fallible” as well as “unreliable”.  However, if the person making the assertion had read the paper, they would see that the cause of the anomalous dates was shown as being a result of humus on the production of the shell â€" or more specifically, inactive carbon from the humus (Keith and Anderson, 1963).  Humus, which is broken down organic matter, was found in the soil.  With this research, the paper added to the knowledge base of radiocarbon dating as was summed up:

“Maximum error is to be expected in shell specimens from animals which lived in humus-laden streams which were actively cutting into old flood plains or old soil profiles.”

Other instances have been offered as support for radiocarbon dating being wildly inaccurate but they are usually similar to the instance I just presented.

 â€œAnthony J. Corte is a chapel minister at the Victoria County Jail for Faith Family Church and member of The John Birch Society.”

Although I disagree with Mr. Corte’s views it does not mean that I view him personally in a negative light.  I am not a member of any church nor do I subscribe to any religion.  However, just as I would like others to respect my choice to not align myself with any religion, I respect the right of others to adhere to whatever religion they wish.  However, not every student in a classroom comes from a Christian home nor do all the families of these children subscribe literally to creation as laid out in the Christian Bible.  Nor is there any scientific validity to the creation story found in the Book of Genesis.  Evolution is a biological theory of change in the populations of organisms and it has a massive amount of evidence-based support from many scientific disciplines.  This theory has been studied, scrutinized and tested for 150 years making it one of the most validated theories in science.

It may also be worthy to note that creationism is only at odds with evolutionary theory on the subject of change in organisms.  Contrary to what is often thought by the public, evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe, the Earth itself or the emergence of life; this is explained by other theories in other disciplines of science.
 
“He has attended three creation seminars. His personal library on the subject of creation includes 17 books and eight videos/dvds.”

I am not sure why this is relevant.  I also have a personal library which includes many books on the subject of creation and evolution along with other subjects as well.  But since we’re listing, my personal library includes approximately  50+ (50 is just what’s on a shelf, this does not include what I have in storage) books on the subjects of evolution, creationism, biology and associated disciplines as well as 11 videos in various formats.  I have works by notable names in creation such as Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson (which, btw, Wells and Johnson have both spurned medical research and knowledge by publicly stating that HIV does not cause AIDS but that’s another entire topic all together) and many others even Harun Yahya (the pen name for Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar).  I also have works by notable figures in evolutionary biology such as Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky and many others.  What does this prove though?  Not much at all. Superficially it could be thought of as a having a large amount of literature equates to be well informed and knowledgeable upon a particular topic(s).  However, it really doesn’t amount to much in the way of argumentative support.

References

Abell, G. (1983). The Ages of the Earth and Universe. In Godfrey (Ed.) Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton.

Aitchison, T., Leese, M., Michczynska, D., Mook, W., Otlet, R., Ottaway, B. et al. (1989). A comparison of methods used for the calibration of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon, 31, 846-864.
 
Arnold, F. (2001). Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature, 409, 253-257.

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Understanding Life (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Bard, E., Menot-Combes, G. and Rostek, F. (2004). Present status of radiocarbon calibration and comparison records based on Polynesian corals and Iberian margin sediments. Radiocarbon, 46, 1189-1202.

Blalock, H. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations.  Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Boaretto, E., Bryant, C., Carmi, I., Cook, G., Gulliksen, S., Harkness, D. et al. (2002). Summary findings of the fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison (FIRI) (1998-2001).  Journal of Quarterly Science, 17(7), 633-637.

Brush, S. (1983). Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth. In Godfrey (Ed.). Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton.

Bull, J. & Wichman, H. (2001). Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 183-217.

Chen, F. and Li, W. (2001). Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68, 444-456.

Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005). Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature, 437, 69-87.

Conover, D. & Munch, S. (2002). Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science, 297, 94-96.

Dahlgren, 1994, Late Proterozoic and Carboniferous ultramafic magmatism of carbonatitic affinity in southern Norway, Lithos, 31, 141-154.

Darwin, C. (1896). The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection. (Vol. 1). New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Davis, D., Gray, J., Gumming, G. and Baadsgard, H. (1977). Determination of the 87Rb decay constant. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 41, 1745-1749.

Drickamer, L., Vessey, S. & Jakob, E. (2002). Animal behavior: Mechanisms, ecology and evolution.  (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Dubin, R. (1978).  Theory building. New York: Free Press.

Ebersberger, I., Schwarz, C., Metzler, D. and Pääbo, S. (2002) Genome wide DNA sequence comparison between humans and chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics, 70, 1490-1497.

Eisen, J. & Wu, M. (2002). Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology, 61, 481-487.

Emery, G. (1972). Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 22, 165-202.

Ebbing, D. (1996). General Chemistry. (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
 
Faul, H., Elmore, P., and Brannock, W. (1959). Age of the Fen carbonatite (Norway) and its relation to the intrusives of the Oslo region. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 17, 153-156.

Futuyma, D. (1986). Evolutionary biology.  Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

Futuyma, D.  (1995). The uses of evolutionary biology. Science, 267, 41-42.

Gaschen, B. et al. (2002). Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science, 296, 2354-2360.

Geochron Laboratories (n.d.) Radiocarbon age determinations. Retrieved January 5, 2010 from http://www.geochronlabs.com/14c.html (http://www.geochronlabs.com/14c.html).

Grant, P. and Grant, R. (2005). Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's Finches. Science, 313, 224-226.

Green, R., Krause, J., Ptak, S., Briggs, A., Ronan, M., Simons, J. et al. (2006). Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA.  Nature, 444, 330-336.

Green, R., Briggs, A., Krause, J., Prufer, K., Burbano, H., Siebauer, M. et al. (2009).  The Neanderthal genome and ancient DNA authenticity.  European Molecular Biology Organization Journal, 28, 2494-2502.

Gould, S. & Eldredge, N. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. Schopf (Ed.). Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.

Jacobsen, S. (2003). How old is planet Earth? Science, 300, 1513-1514.

Jurmain, R., Nelson, H., Kilgore, L. & Trevathan, W. (2000). Introduction to physical anthropology. (8th ed.). Stamford: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Keith, M. and Anderson, G. (1963). Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science, 141, 634-637.

Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M. and Paabo, S. (1997). Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90, 19-30.

Kuhn, T. (1977).  Second thoughts on paradigms.  In F. Schuppe (Ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories.  (2nd ed.).  Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Levin, H. (1999). The Earth through time (6th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

Long, A. (1990). A quality assurance protocol for radiocarbon dating laboratories. Radiocarbon, 32, 393-397.

Marczyk, A. (2004). Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. Retrieve January 9, 2010 from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html)

Mayr, E. (1954). Change of genetic environment and evolution.  In J. Huxley, A. Hardy & E. Ford (Eds.). Evolution as a process.  London: Allen and Unwin.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

Meert, J., Torsvik, T., Eide, E. and Dahlgreen, S. (1998). Tectonic significance of the Fen Province, S. Norway: Constraints from geochronology and paleomagnetism. Journal of Geology, 106, 553-564.

Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.).Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Morris, H. (1974).  Scientific creationism.  Green Forest: Master Books.

Noonan, J., Coop, G., Kudaravalli, S., Smith, D., Krause, J., Alessi, J. et al. (2006). Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science, 314, 1113-1118.

Pagel, M., Venditti, C. & Meade, A. (2006). Large punctuational contribution of speciation to evolutionary divergence at the molecular level.  Science, 314, 119-121.

Pazdur, A., Fogtman, M., Michczynski, A. & Pawlyta, J. (2003). Precision of 14C dating in Gliwice radiocarbon laboratory. FIRI programme.  Geochronometria, 22, 27-40.

Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pickett, J. (Ed.) (2001). The American Heritage Dictionary. New York: Dell Publishing.

Plastino, W., Kaihola, L., Bartolomei, P. & Bella, F. (2001). Cosmic background reduction in the radiocarbon measurements by liquid scintillation spectrometry at the underground laboratory of Gran Sasso.  Radiocarbon, 43, 157-161.

Plummer, C., McGeary, D., & Carlson, D. (2003). Physical geology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Poincare, H. (1905). Science and Hypothesis. NewYork: Walter Scott Publishing.

Prochaska, J., Wright, J. & Velicer, W. (2008). Evaluating theories of health behavior change: A hierarchy of criteria applied to the Transtheoretical Model.  Applied Psychology: An Interational Review, 57(4), 561-588.

Protein Information Resource (2009). iProClass Integrated Protein Knowledge Database â€" cytochrome c.  Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://pir.georgetown.edu/pirwww/index.shtml (http://pir.georgetown.edu/pirwww/index.shtml)

Relman, D. (1999). The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science, 284, 1308-1310.

Robinson, D. & Cavanaugh, D. (1998). A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the Catarrhine primates.  Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, 34(4), 196-208.

Saether, E. (1958). The alkaline rock province of Fen area in southern Norway. Del. Kgl. Norske. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr, 1, 1-150.

Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G., Bachmann, J., Giddings, I., Ruschoff-Thale, B. et al. (2000). Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid bones.  American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1927-1932.

Schwarcz, H. (1997).  Uranium series dating.  In R. Taylor and M. Aitken (Eds.). Chronometric dating in Archaeology.  New York: Plenum Press.

Scott, E. (2003). The fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon, 45, 135-150.

Scott, E., Cook, G., Naysmith, P., Bryant, C. & O’Donnell, D. (2007). A report on phase 1 of the 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI).  Radiocarbon, 49(2), 409-426.

Searls, D. (2003). Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2, 613-623.

Shure, K. (1983). Decay heat and decay rate of actinides in highly neutron-irradiated uranium initially of high /sup 235/U content. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 85, 51-54.

Solomon, R. (1998). The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy. (5th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

Stein, M., Goldstein, S. and Schramm, A. (2000). Radiocarbon calibration beyond the dendrochronology range. Radiocarbon, 42, 415-422.

Strahler, A. (1987). Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy.  Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Suppes, P. (1967).  What is a scientific theory?  In S. Morgensbesser (Ed.),  Philosophy of Science Today (pp. 55-67).  New York, NY:  Basic Books.

Verschure, R., Maijer, C., Andriessen, P., Boelrijk, N., Hebeda, E., Priem, H. et al. (1983). Dating explosive volcanism perforating the Precambrian basement in southern Norway. Norges Geologiske Undersokelse Bulletin, 380, 35-49.

Vogel, G. (1998). HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science, 282, 851-852.

Witte, J. (2006). Facts and fictions about the history of separation of church and state.  Journal of Church and State, 48(1), 15-45.

Wood, T. (2008a).  Bara â€" what?  Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... t&vPrint=1 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/bara-what&vPrint=1)

Wood, T. (2008b).  Horse fossils and the nature of science.  Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s&vPrint=1 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/horse-fossils&vPrint=1)
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: curiosityandthecat on January 21, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
I friggin' love you, man. Seriously.  :hail:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: pinkocommie on January 21, 2010, 02:21:01 AM
This was awesome.  Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this, it's very well done and clear for me to understand which says a lot because I am no super smarty pants.  Also, this post reminded me a lot of the book 'Monkey Girl' which covered the Dover school trials where a conservative judge ruled that Intelligent Design was a religious concept rather than a scientific theory and therefore could not legally be taught in the PA public schools science class.  A lot of the arguments you respond to in this post are also covered in that book and the way the scientific community rallied together to prove their case really shone through.  Have you ever read it?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Squid on January 21, 2010, 02:23:27 AM
Quote from: "pinkocommie"This was awesome.  Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this, it's very well done and clear for me to understand which says a lot because I am no super smarty pants.  Also, this post reminded me a lot of the book 'Monkey Girl' which covered the Dover school trials where a conservative judge ruled that Intelligent Design was a religious concept rather than a scientific theory and therefore could not legally be taught in the PA public schools science class.  A lot of the arguments you respond to in this post are also covered in that book and the way the scientific community rallied together to prove their case really shone through.  Have you ever read it?

Thanks and no, I've never even heard of that book.  Sounds like a good read though, I'll have to look for it!  :headbang:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: curiosityandthecat on January 21, 2010, 02:31:07 AM
Quote from: "Squid"
Quote from: "pinkocommie"This was awesome.  Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this, it's very well done and clear for me to understand which says a lot because I am no super smarty pants.  Also, this post reminded me a lot of the book 'Monkey Girl' which covered the Dover school trials where a conservative judge ruled that Intelligent Design was a religious concept rather than a scientific theory and therefore could not legally be taught in the PA public schools science class.  A lot of the arguments you respond to in this post are also covered in that book and the way the scientific community rallied together to prove their case really shone through.  Have you ever read it?

Thanks and no, I've never even heard of that book.  Sounds like a good read though, I'll have to look for it!  :yay:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Squid on January 21, 2010, 03:04:34 AM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I friggin' love you, man. Seriously.  :headbang:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Jolly Sapper on January 21, 2010, 04:15:41 PM
:idea:


 :headbang:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: joeactor on January 21, 2010, 06:11:39 PM
Well written, and a wealth of information.

That being said, I think you may have missed the mark on communicating with your target audience.

In order to educate, first you must connect.  It's a point that's often missed when trying to persuade others to your viewpoint.
People on both sides honestly believe "if I just explained it, they'd see it my way".  If only the world worked like that!

Still, I like it as a resource article - chock full of sciency goodness ;-)
JoeActor
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Adrian Simmons on March 02, 2010, 01:39:38 AM
My kids still go to a christian school, I don't see a problem. As long as they're taught well by competent and understanding teachers, that's fine by me. Christianity is a good foundation for kids if the focus is on morals and what have you and that's what they're getting. If they decide later on in life not to believe in God, or to continue, I don't mind, all that matters is that the moral side of what they're learning stays with them. My kids do believe in creation and it doesn't bother me, and I still give them Christmas presents (well, it would be just mean not to). They know what I think about God and I think they're lucky to have a parent who respectufully disagrees with them, and vice versa, because it is teaching them a lesson very early on that you can get on with anybody no matter what they believe, which is a good life skill to have, perhaps one of the best.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: pinkocommie on March 02, 2010, 02:54:23 AM
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"My kids still go to a christian school, I don't see a problem. As long as they're taught well by competent and understanding teachers, that's fine by me. Christianity is a good foundation for kids if the focus is on morals and what have you and that's what they're getting. If they decide later on in life not to believe in God, or to continue, I don't mind, all that matters is that the moral side of what they're learning stays with them. My kids do believe in creation and it doesn't bother me, and I still give them Christmas presents (well, it would be just mean not to). They know what I think about God and I think they're lucky to have a parent who respectufully disagrees with them, and vice versa, because it is teaching them a lesson very early on that you can get on with anybody no matter what they believe, which is a good life skill to have, perhaps one of the best.

Does your kid's school teach creationism as a scientific theory?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Adrian Simmons on March 02, 2010, 03:00:51 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of that but I don't know, maybe I should ask, but actually I don't mind if it is. They have their whole lives to figure out what they think anyway, my priority is for them to grow up respecting themselves and others.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: pinkocommie on March 02, 2010, 03:58:01 AM
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of that but I don't know, maybe I should ask, but actually I don't mind if it is. They have their whole lives to figure out what they think anyway, my priority is for them to grow up respecting themselves and others.

How do you know if your kids go to a good school if you don't know what the school teaches?  I can understand if you've decided the only really important thing you feel you need to teach your kids is that they should be good people, but you can't say that a school that teaches creationism as science is a good school because the school obviously doesn't even have a clear idea of what science is.  Creationism is not science.  Intelligent design is junk science.  If your kids go to a school that teaches either one as science, their education is suffering.  It may be a good school according to your standards, but that doesn't make it a good school.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Adrian Simmons on March 02, 2010, 04:01:30 AM
Quote from: "pinkocommie"
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of that but I don't know, maybe I should ask, but actually I don't mind if it is. They have their whole lives to figure out what they think anyway, my priority is for them to grow up respecting themselves and others.

How do you know if your kids go to a good school if you don't know what the school teaches?  I can understand if you've decided the only really important thing you feel you need to teach your kids is that they should be good people, but you can't say that a school that teaches creationism as science is a good school because the school obviously doesn't even have a clear idea of what science is.  Creationism is not science.  Intelligent design is junk science.  If your kids go to a school that teaches either one as science, their education is suffering.  It may be a good school according to your standards, but that doesn't make it a good school.

Overall it is a good school. I'm not too fussed if some of what they're taught isn't correct, on the contrary, throughout their lives they're going to come across all kinds of ideas anyway and I feel it's down to them to decide what's correct.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: elliebean on March 02, 2010, 04:05:44 AM
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of that but I don't know, maybe I should ask, but actually I don't mind if it is. They have their whole lives to figure out what they think anyway, my priority is for them to grow up respecting themselves and others.

If you expect them to learn to respect themselves and others by going to a religious school, particularly given your dismissive attitude toward their education... well, prepare yourself for disappointment.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Adrian Simmons on March 02, 2010, 04:09:04 AM
Quote from: "elliebean"
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of that but I don't know, maybe I should ask, but actually I don't mind if it is. They have their whole lives to figure out what they think anyway, my priority is for them to grow up respecting themselves and others.

If you expect them to learn to respect themselves and others by going to a religious school, particularly given your dismissive attitude toward their education... well, prepare yourself for disappointment.

Not at all, they're taught all the basic subjects very well just like in any other school. If not I'd move them to a better one. In life they're going to meet people with many varied points of view. I went to a religious school myself and I turned out ok. I'm sure they'll be fine.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: pinkocommie on March 02, 2010, 04:15:11 AM
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"Not at all, they're taught all the basic subjects very well just like in any other school. If not I'd move them to a better one. In life they're going to meet people with many varied points of view. I went to a religious school myself and I turned out ok. I'm sure they'll be fine.

I don't doubt they'll be fine.  Hopefully they'll go to college since that's where real education begins anyway.  I agree that making sure your kids are good people is an important part of being a parent and as a parent, I don't judge your choices in accomplishing that.  You seem cool, they'll be cool too.  :D
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Adrian Simmons on March 02, 2010, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: "pinkocommie"
Quote from: "Adrian Simmons"Not at all, they're taught all the basic subjects very well just like in any other school. If not I'd move them to a better one. In life they're going to meet people with many varied points of view. I went to a religious school myself and I turned out ok. I'm sure they'll be fine.

I don't doubt they'll be fine.  Hopefully they'll go to college since that's where real education begins anyway.  I agree that making sure your kids are good people is an important part of being a parent and as a parent, I don't judge your choices in accomplishing that.  You seem cool, they'll be cool too.  :D

Haha, the university of life. I don't care what anyone says, I think it starts in the womb.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: TheJackel on March 09, 2010, 11:11:59 PM
Creationism is impossible actually.. There is a very deep problem with the Creationist theory and that is that you can not create the following into existence or be the creator of any of the following! And if you can't create these things, you equal FAIL at being a "CREATOR" or a "GOD". This is especially true when said deity is slave to the need of these things it can not create!

    * existence
    * intelligence
    * information
    * knowledge
    * Point of zero
    * Empty Space
    * self-awareness
    * self-identity
    * consciousness
    * a place for one's self to exist
    * mind containment
    * light/dark
    * infinity
    * time
    * sight
    * hearing
    * smell
    * observation
    * calculation
    * manipulation
    * thought
    * perception
    * reality
    * Feelings
    * Emotions
    * complexity
    * cause and effect
    * thought processing
    * Memory


In Short: If man were created by a higher being, it would be like a cultivation of RNA worshiping a lab full of human scientists.. Nothing special there.. And there is also the complexity problem and the fact that divinity itself is a model of evolution.. So I agree, creationism should not be taught in schools because it's a joke to begin with.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: jobee on April 09, 2010, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: "pinkocommie"This was awesome.  Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this, it's very well done and clear for me to understand which says a lot because I am no super smarty pants.  Also, this post reminded me a lot of the book 'Monkey Girl' which covered the Dover school trials where a conservative judge ruled that Intelligent Design was a religious concept rather than a scientific theory and therefore could not legally be taught in the PA public schools science class.  A lot of the arguments you respond to in this post are also covered in that book and the way the scientific community rallied together to prove their case really shone through.  Have you ever read it?

The council of europe 'EU' has banned creationism being taught - Sweden has relegated it to fiction.

All info on your computer.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: karadan on April 09, 2010, 11:20:31 AM
Quote from: "jobee"The council of europe 'EU' has banned creationism being taught - Sweden has relegated it to fiction.

All info on your computer.

I love Sweden.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Dretlin on April 09, 2010, 02:29:06 PM
Quote from: "karadan"
Quote from: "jobee"The council of europe 'EU' has banned creationism being taught - Sweden has relegated it to fiction.

All info on your computer.

I love Sweden.

Well done Sweden. I wonder if this policy will be adopted by the rest of Scandinavia.

I try very hard to find any form of creationism in schools in Scotland and (thank goodness) I am yet to find any. Some legislation would ease me somewhat however.

Secular people in Scotland stands at 28%, I wonder if this is increasing.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: karadan on April 09, 2010, 03:39:35 PM
Quote from: "Dretlin"
Quote from: "karadan"
Quote from: "jobee"The council of europe 'EU' has banned creationism being taught - Sweden has relegated it to fiction.

All info on your computer.

I love Sweden.

Well done Sweden. I wonder if this policy will be adopted by the rest of Scandinavia.

I try very hard to find any form of creationism in schools in Scotland and (thank goodness) I am yet to find any. Some legislation would ease me somewhat however.

Secular people in Scotland stands at 28%, I wonder if this is increasing.  :hmm:

I went to a christian boarding school in Suffolk. One of my biology teachers was very religious as was one of my maths teachers but neither of them was a creationist. I don't think even the reverand was a creationist. Creationism was never brought up as an alternative to the scientific model. I'm sure creationism is only really taught as fact in the strictest of christian schools in the UK.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Dretlin on April 09, 2010, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: "karadan"I went to a christian boarding school in Suffolk. One of my biology teachers was very religious as was one of my maths teachers but neither of them was a creationist. I don't think even the reverand was a creationist. Creationism was never brought up as an alternative to the scientific model. I'm sure creationism is only really taught as fact in the strictest of christian schools in the UK.

I have only really seen creationist views expressed from Americans and very little from Europeans. Do you think this is due to my lack of research or creationism is not expressed in Europe?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: karadan on April 09, 2010, 08:11:01 PM
Quote from: "Dretlin"
Quote from: "karadan"I went to a christian boarding school in Suffolk. One of my biology teachers was very religious as was one of my maths teachers but neither of them was a creationist. I don't think even the reverand was a creationist. Creationism was never brought up as an alternative to the scientific model. I'm sure creationism is only really taught as fact in the strictest of christian schools in the UK.

I have only really seen creationist views expressed from Americans and very little from Europeans. Do you think this is due to my lack of research or creationism is not expressed in Europe?

I really have no idea. There are creationists in Europe, for sure, but they don't seem to have as much air time as American creationists. As far as i know, there aren't any creationist politicians in the UK, for instance. If there are, they keep it to themselves. I doubt Europe has the same proportion of creationists but that is actually something i can't answer for sure. It would seem America has more, but then, maybe they just have a louder voice.

Maybe some of the other members here might be able to answer this more clearly. Could be a good topic for a new thread.  ;)
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Dretlin on April 10, 2010, 06:05:55 PM
Quote from: "karadan"
Quote from: "Dretlin"
Quote from: "karadan"I went to a christian boarding school in Suffolk. One of my biology teachers was very religious as was one of my maths teachers but neither of them was a creationist. I don't think even the reverand was a creationist. Creationism was never brought up as an alternative to the scientific model. I'm sure creationism is only really taught as fact in the strictest of christian schools in the UK.

I have only really seen creationist views expressed from Americans and very little from Europeans. Do you think this is due to my lack of research or creationism is not expressed in Europe?

I really have no idea. There are creationists in Europe, for sure, but they don't seem to have as much air time as American creationists. As far as i know, there aren't any creationist politicians in the UK, for instance. If there are, they keep it to themselves. I doubt Europe has the same proportion of creationists but that is actually something i can't answer for sure. It would seem America has more, but then, maybe they just have a louder voice.

Maybe some of the other members here might be able to answer this more clearly. Could be a good topic for a new thread.  ;)

Yes! Rather than discuss it further here. Perhaps a topic about creationism in Europe compared to America.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Sophus on April 10, 2010, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: "url=http://sites.google.com/a/drvinson.net/science/polls]Google[/url]"]A cross-national study of the United States and nine European nations in 2002-2003 used the expanded version of the question. The results confirm that a significantly lower proportion of American adults believe that evolution is absolutely true than adults in nine European countries [see fig. S1 in the Supporting Online Material (SOM)]. A third of American adults indicated that evolution is "absolutely false"; the proportion of European adults who thought that evolution was absolutely false ranged from 7% in Denmark, France, and Great Britain to 15% in the Netherlands.
Regardless of the form of the question, one in three American adults firmly rejects the concept of evolution, a significantly higher proportion than found in any western European country. How can we account for this pattern of American reservations about the concept of evolution in the context of broad acceptance in Europe and Japan?...  
More Polls Here. (http://www.gallup.com/search/default.aspx?q=evolution)
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 03:44:01 PM
I believe in evolution of the physical body, but I think people should be told about all the views which are out there, and then they can make up their own mind. By preventing people from knowing what others think, all you're doing is effectively forcing them to believe as you do. Also, people need to know what others think about different things, at the very least simply for the sake of knowing.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 03:56:02 PM
1)  Not all hypotheses are equal, nor do they deserve equal time.  I'd argue that the time spent on any explanation should be proportional to its explanatory power.

2)  If you wish to teach a religious view of the accession of life, then do so in an elective religion class; it is obviously out of place in a science class.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"1)  Not all hypotheses are equal, nor do they deserve equal time.  I'd argue that the time spent on any explanation should be proportional to its explanatory power.

2)  If you wish to teach a religious view of the accession of life, then do so in an elective religion class; it is obviously out of place in a science class.

Well I still say that everyone has a right to be aware of what the world thinks about god, religion, evolution, creationism, etc.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 04:02:38 PM
hahah, as if we're not already awash in a world suffused with religion.

If Almighty God wanted humans to be aware of him, what use would he have for mortal educational requirements?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 04:07:17 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"hahah, as if we're not already awash in a world suffused with religion.

If Almighty God wanted humans to be aware of him, what use would he have for mortal educational requirements?

You're being facetious. We should all be aware of what other people's views are. And it doesn't matter if you disagree because the principle is about awareness.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 04:09:56 PM
My second point is dead-serious.  We have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution for a reason, and the government has no right, nor business, to violate it in schools.

What if the religious explanation taught to your children was Hinduism's, or voodu's?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 04:13:20 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"My second point is dead-serious.  We have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution for a reason, and the government has no right, nor business, to violate it in schools.

What if the religious explanation taught to your children was Hinduism's, or voodu's?

What you're basically still saying is that you don't want people to be aware of views other than your own. I say that everyone should be given that awareness.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 04:21:28 PM
No, what I'm saying is that when there is no evidence to support a view, it ought not be taught in a science class.

Also, please answer my question:  What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodu?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No, what I'm saying is that when there is no evidence to support a view, it ought not be taught in a science class.

Also, please answer my question:  What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodu?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Before you were all but explicitly saying that other views shouldn't be taught, and now you're saying that they should be taught, just not in science class. The problem with that of course is, who decides what is fact?

As for your question, what about it? What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodoo?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No, what I'm saying is that when there is no evidence to support a view, it ought not be taught in a science class.

Also, please answer my question:  What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodu?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Before you were all but explicitly saying that other views shouldn't be taught, and now you're saying that they should be taught, just not in science class. The problem with that of course is, who decides what is fact?

As for your question, what about it? What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodoo?

Reality decides what is facts.  ideologies not based in reality should be taught in a comparative world religions class.

Your refusal to answer my question is duly noted.  You will not receive any further answer from me until you answer my question; it is common courtesy.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 04:33:56 PM
Fair enough, it was a bit of a silly question anyway.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
No, it was to-the-point.  It's just that the answer bodes ill for your point.

:)
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"I believe in evolution of the physical body, but I think people should be told about all the views which are out there, and then they can make up their own mind. By preventing people from knowing what others think, all you're doing is effectively forcing them to believe as you do. Also, people need to know what others think about different things, at the very least simply for the sake of knowing.
If we had to know everything when we left school, we'd never leave. So why teach bullshit like creationism?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 04:54:45 PM
Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 05:05:28 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Are you in the US? I ask that as in the UK creationism could be taught in Religious Education, while I believe in the states it can't be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 05:11:38 PM
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Are you in the US? I ask that as in the UK creationism could be taught in Religious Education, while I believe in the states it can't be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state?

No.

I'm more concerned that all the popular views are at least made available in school, somehow, just so people can decide for themselves.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 05:47:27 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Are you in the US? I ask that as in the UK creationism could be taught in Religious Education, while I believe in the states it can't be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state?

No.

I'm more concerned that all the popular views are at least made available in school, somehow, just so people can decide for themselves.
I agree that it's important that prevalent views are discussed. I would only get the placards out if it was decided to teach something like Intelligent Design as science in a science class. ID and creationism could be taught/discussed alongside other beliefs systems in Religious Education (RE) without a problem.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 06:00:12 PM
I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID. They are using scientific terms. So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not) as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another. In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all. So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic. It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage. You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 06:39:44 PM
IDs links with Creationism are clearly laid out here (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html).
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 07:00:58 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID. They are using scientific terms. So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not) as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another. In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all. So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic. It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage. You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.
You obviously don't know as much about ID as I do, or the Discovery Institute 'Wedge Strategy' that underpins ID. ID is creationism in disguise, end of story. It's lots of fancy scientific words and no content.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 07:06:04 PM
QuoteI know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it.

Science is not about what sounds "sciency".  It is about what can withstand rigorous examination while retaining explanatory power.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Davin on July 01, 2010, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID.
Just barely.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"They are using scientific terms.
Yes, the problem is that they're not using them correctly. By correctly I mean that they're constantly failing at the scientific method by consistently committing logical errors, the biggest one being confirmation bias, the worst is when they "trust" a scientifically proven method in one instance but disregard it as not accurate enough in another instance (like carbon dating is perfectly fine when it dates back to some tree that got flooded about 4,000 years ago but not when carbon dating dates something back more than 10,000 years), also: just using scientific terms does not a science make.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not)
Only in the same sense that a child with a garden hose is a fireman.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it.
The problem is that they can't back up what they say and it fails scrutinies of the scientific method every time. When it's treated just as every other scientific theory, it fails. It has no accurate or useful predictions, all independent verification shows that each of it's conclusions aren't true and simple demonstrations show that it doesn't work the way they say it does. Really it fails all around as a scientific theory, especially when compared to what we call real science.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another.
There's a big difference. When scientists disagree with each other they provide the reasons they disagree. While Newton came up with a theory for gravity, and like I think should happen, he was questioned and argued with and because he was somewhat correct, he was able to show evidence that the theory was correct. Now it wasn't completely right just as our current theory of gravity likely isn't completely right, but at the very least it was in the right direction. In comparison, when religion is wrong, they don't refine where they're wrong, they just abandon the dogma. Like that the Sol revolves around the Earth.

The contrast between the two methods is that when ID is shown evidence that they're wrong, they either ignore the evidence or drop the idea. When science is wrong, they use the evidence to make the theory more accurate to reality. The reason is because when science says "this is the way this works" it isn't because someone got drunk one night and came up with a random idea, it's because they've gathered evidence that shows that that is the way things work. While ID people tend to work from the conclusion to find evidence that supports the conclusion instead of finding out where the evidence leads resulting in a conclusion.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all.
Never seen any example where ID people were right against science.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic.
It's better than in a fiction reading class where it really belongs.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage.
Because they've already been discredited several times. They'd get the same respect as other scientific proposals, if they followed the same methodology of other scientific proposals. But I'm sure that the ID people know that they're ideas won't hold up to the same scientific scrutiny that real scientific theories are held to.
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.
No, it only belongs in the realm of science after it's passed the gauntlet of the scientific method.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: pinkocommie on July 01, 2010, 08:08:52 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID. They are using scientific terms. So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not) as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another. In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all. So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic. It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage. You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.

You seriously need to read the book 'Monkey Girl'.  ID is not only a religious idea in sciency clothing, they sciency clothing they tried to give to the concept was so flimsy that a court of law had no way to distinguish ID from Creationism except a few key pieces of terminology were different.  ID was the next try by an obsessed anti-science community to get religion taught as an alternative to science and they were found out and exposed for the frauds they are.  It is NOT science, or if it is science, it's bad science that should be entirely ignored by anyone with serious scientific aspirations.  The fact that anyone would try to say that ID in any way should be considered science simply shows the person who is arguing either has very little knowledge of science, what ID is, or both.

The whole 'teach the controversy' BS is simply a childish ploy, a double dog dare from a group who has no other way to get their fractured, broken 'scientific theory' to be taken seriously.  Should we also teach in geography that the Earth sits on pillars?  Or is flat?  Or in the centre of the universe?  Or rides on the back of a giant turtle?  Any one of those arguments could be just as convincing as ID given the same amount of time and money the ID movement has invested to make themselves seem somewhat credible to the uninformed.

ID is mythology explained with scientific terminology in order to make creationists feel less silly about believing that the Earth is 6000-10000 years old when there are historical accounts of civilizations older than that, not to mention fossils, ice core samples, geological strata, etc. etc. etc.  Instead of desperately trying to find some shred of proof that the impossible is possible, why not start looking at other explanations beyond archaic religious belief?  If you like this ID rubbish science, you might LOVE real, valid science.  :)
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Kylyssa on July 01, 2010, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage.

Are you at all aware of where the ID movement originated and the plan that it embodies?  It's creators' intent is important.  If Darwin's theory of Evolution had been created to slowly erode belief in Yahweh rather than based on observable phenomena and objects, wouldn't you question it?  Evolutionary theory is not an attempt to disprove anything.  Rather, it is like a crime scene investigation trying to reconstruct what happened based on the evidence.  ID, however has a clear goal in mind and any evidence is warped to fit the goal or discarded if it does not fit the goal.  

Those who began the recent ID movement laid out its purpose - to insert the concept of God into evolution, then to slowly erode the evolution part until, over a period of years, what would eventually taught would be Christian style Creationism.  They have a plan for it, not based on evidence but on their vision of Christianity being taught as fact in public schools.  Doesn't the motivation or methodology matter to you at all?  If the point and motivation for ID is to insert Christianity into schools, how is it not religious?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 01, 2010, 09:38:09 PM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage.

Are you at all aware of where the ID movement originated and the plan that it embodies?  It's creators' intent is important.  If Darwin's theory of Evolution had been created to slowly erode belief in Yahweh rather than based on observable phenomena and objects, wouldn't you question it?  Evolutionary theory is not an attempt to disprove anything.  Rather, it is like a crime scene investigation trying to reconstruct what happened based on the evidence.  ID, however has a clear goal in mind and any evidence is warped to fit the goal or discarded if it does not fit the goal.  

Those who began the recent ID movement laid out its purpose - to insert the concept of God into evolution, then to slowly erode the evolution part until, over a period of years, what would eventually taught would be Christian style Creationism.  They have a plan for it, not based on evidence but on their vision of Christianity being taught as fact in public schools.  Doesn't the motivation or methodology matter to you at all?  If the point and motivation for ID is to insert Christianity into schools, how is it not religious?

I tried to help him by linking to an article about the "cdesign proponentist" kerfuffle, but he has yet to comment on it.  One wonders if he'll absorb the new data, or ignore it.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Kylyssa on July 01, 2010, 09:42:05 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I tried to help him by linking to an article about the "cdesign proponentist" kerfuffle, but he has yet to comment on it.  One wonders if he'll absorb the new data, or ignore it.

Yeah, I figured he wouldn't read your link so I tried to give a short explanation.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 09:59:28 PM
You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 10:11:48 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
0/10 Fail.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
0/10 Fail.

I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
0/10 Fail.

I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.
I love people who disagree with me, it's morons I have difficulty with  :D
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 10:26:53 PM
You're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Kylyssa on July 01, 2010, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

The people behind the ID movement have written to others in the movement stating that ID is creationism in disguise.  They have stated that their plan is to use ID to insert Christian creationism into schools.  Their stated aims are to insert Christian creationism into public schools by using ID as a wedge to get in the door.  The people behind the ID movement, themselves, communicated that it is merely a tactic to squeeze creationism into schools eventually, a foot in the door for religion.  But if you'd bother to read that link provided by Thumpalumpacus, you'd know that.  

The same people trying to get Intelligent Design into schools failed to get creationism into schools. The very same people.  Why, pray tell, would people who got defeated in trying to get creationism taught in schools suddenly switch to trying to get ID taught in schools?

Scientists who talk about ID as if it were reality are speaking in their capacity as men of faith.  If ID is the one and only truth, then why is there no physical evidence in support of it and why do more than 99% of biologists think it's religion, not science?  Redefining science to not require any empirical evidence does not make it so.  Things believed without evidence are examples of faith, not science.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Kylyssa on July 01, 2010, 10:38:43 PM
So I suppose if a scientist speaks about Zeus as if he were real then that makes talking about Zeus science, right?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 01, 2010, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
In for a penny in for a pound as they say. No. I'm calling you a Moron, you walk like a Moron, talk like a Moron and quack like a Moron. Can I be more explicit? No I don't think so. I'll take my strips, but you'll still be a Moron spouting moronic ideas provided to you by other morons who think that using long words will make them sound smart through their dullard mindless and delusional maundering. People like you who hold ideas like you are singularly dangerous to humanity. You despoil all that is good about humanity. You deny real science and attempt to insert your own strawman in its place. Your behaviour and attitude are truly despicable, I have nothing but contempt for people like you and the ideas you spout from the pulpit of selfish insanity. I'm not scared of calling a moron a moron and you sir, are a moron.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Kylyssa on July 01, 2010, 10:51:08 PM
Um, Tank, I know that some people arouse these emotions through their blinkered words and aggressive resistance to reason but it's better not to get emotionally involved.  I go and hit my roommate's punching bag a few times if those emotions start to build too much.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: pinkocommie on July 01, 2010, 10:52:05 PM
Great point, Kylyssa, the redefinition that would have to occur to integrate ID into science would completely change what science is.  If you think ID is science then you're effectively arguing that creationism is science and if you honestly believe creationism is in any way a scientific concept, then I'm afraid you don't know very much about science.

Scientists are just like any other group of people - there are good scientists and there are poor scientists.  There are even exceptional scientists that make mistakes once in a while.  Getting a degree which allows a person the title of scientist does not make them a GOOD scientist.

FYI - here is the decision rendered by the judge in the Dover case concerning ID being taught in schools -

QuoteOn December 20, 2005 Federal Judge John E. Jones, a Republican jurist appointed by President George W. Bush rendered this decision:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Davin on July 01, 2010, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise.
It is. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8061)
QuoteIn fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in hundreds of instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent".

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association.
Well then let's compare the merits of both our statements and see who has the logic that is more sound?

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists.
Not everything produced by a scientist is science, just like not everything produce by a science fiction writer is always science fiction. The point here is that just because someone with an occupation and credentials for subject X, not everything produced by this person belongs in category X. This is especially true in science. The scientific method removes those claims that cannot be supported by reality.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse.
Yes, we all remember the Spanish Inquisition and what the religious did to Galileo. I could right now go around proclaiming that Gremlins are the cause of all earthquakes and airplane crashes, get ridiculed to no end, and still be wrong. It's not whether things go against the norms or not, it's how well theory Z describes reality. ID/Creationism don't describe reality very well at all.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"What you are suggesting is not much different.
What I'm suggesting is that only scientific theories be taught in a science class. That is much different.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil.
Just wait for the economy in the U.S. to recover, then all this recent religious revival will go back down and sanity will begin to pick up lost ground. Because statistically speaking, religious activity increases as the quality of life drops and decreases as the quality of life increases. Of course statistically speaking, better education also leads to less religiousness, which is probably the real reason why ID/Creationists want to teach bad science in a science class.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
Nope nothing, it wouldn't matter if Einstein wrote in his capacity as a scientist that fairies kissing caused nuclear explosions, it wouldn't make it any more true. This just seems like a good old appeal to authority.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 01, 2010, 11:00:03 PM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

The people behind the ID movement have written to others in the movement stating that ID is creationism in disguise.  They have stated that their plan is to use ID to insert Christian creationism into schools.  Their stated aims are to insert Christian creationism into public schools by using ID as a wedge to get in the door.  The people behind the ID movement, themselves, communicated that it is merely a tactic to squeeze creationism into schools eventually, a foot in the door for religion.  But if you'd bother to read that link provided by Thumpalumpacus, you'd know that.  

The same people trying to get Intelligent Design into schools failed to get creationism into schools. The very same people.  Why, pray tell, would people who got defeated in trying to get creationism taught in schools suddenly switch to trying to get ID taught in schools?

Scientists who talk about ID as if it were reality are speaking in their capacity as men of faith.  If ID is the one and only truth, then why is there no physical evidence in support of it and why do more than 99% of biologists think it's religion, not science?  Redefining science to not require any empirical evidence does not make it so.  Things believed without evidence are examples of faith, not science.

Intelligent Design is not in itself a movement. I believe in it but I'm not part of that or any movement. There's a difference between a view and a movement centred on that view, would you not agree? Anyway, teaching creationsism, atheism, or anything in betwen is fine by me.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: The Black Jester on July 01, 2010, 11:02:37 PM
Just out of curiosity, Filanthropod, did you read Squid's OP?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Cecilie on July 01, 2010, 11:15:44 PM
In Norway we have a seperate religion and ethics class, don't they have it elsewhere?
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 02, 2010, 12:58:55 AM
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
In for a penny in for a pound as they say. No. I'm calling you a Moron, you walk like a Moron, talk like a Moron and quack like a Moron. Can I be more explicit? No I don't think so. I'll take my strips, but you'll still be a Moron spouting moronic ideas provided to you by other morons who think that using long words will make them sound smart through their dullard mindless and delusional maundering. People like you who hold ideas like you are singularly dangerous to humanity. You despoil all that is good about humanity. You deny real science and attempt to insert your own strawman in its place. Your behaviour and attitude are truly despicable, I have nothing but contempt for people like you and the ideas you spout from the pulpit of selfish insanity. I'm not scared of calling a moron a moron and you sir, are a moron.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time, Tank. I'm going to make a comparison and I don't want you to get the wrong idea, just take my point. There are people out there designing weapons for killing other people, there are religious nuts out there saying that they're better than other people and saying let's kill them, and every day someone somewhere rapes or kills or tortures another person. But you in your infinite wisodm and judgment have decided to choose me as the ultimate bogeyman.

What do you know about me? That I believe in god. And from that you've figured out that I'm dangerous to humanity? However did you manage that? What I think is that people who go around so readily accusing others of being dangerous just because of a point of view are themselves potentially dangerous given half a chance. Honestly your post is hilarious in the extreme. You actually believe that I'm dangerous because I believe in god. Have you been drinking? You're hysterical, in every sense of the word. Pull yourself together and don't be so paranoid about people who are no danger to you or anyone else. You're like a religious nut, pointing and screaming "danger, danger, stop him!" You're like a cartoon character, a pantomime. Go on, tell me exactly how I'm a danger to humanity, sherlock.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Whitney on July 02, 2010, 01:50:17 AM
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.
I love people who disagree with me, it's morons I have difficulty with  :D

Tank, please remember that name calling isn't in line with the forum guidelines.  But you are free to point ou how wrong he is and the flaws in his comments as there are many.

Filant...you have A LOT of learning to do.  Fortunately we have thoroughly covered why ID is not science on this forum multiple times...just search through our creationism board.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 02, 2010, 08:38:53 AM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.

Quote from: "Tank"I love people who disagree with me, it's morons I have difficulty with  :D

I completely agree with your assessment, but I've been called a moron plenty of times.  Take it for what it's worth.

And, Fila, I don't think anyone here wants ID taught in school at all, except, of course, you.  I think Tank was just saying that if it must be done, do it in a religion class, where it obviously belongs.  That is certainly my opinion.

By the way, did you look at the link I put up showing the provenance of ID?  Do you have any thoughts on the matter?  Do tell.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 02, 2010, 08:49:25 AM
Quote from: "Whitney"Tank, please remember that name calling isn't in line with the forum guidelines.  But you are free to point ou how wrong he is and the flaws in his comments as there are many.
Understood.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: karadan on July 02, 2010, 10:23:19 AM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.


Davin, Thumpalumpacus, Tank, Kylyssa and Pinkocommie ripped your earlier points apart. Instead of addressing them, you spouted the same nonsense in a slightly different way. You've shown a disingenuous attitude and are obviously here to preach, not learn.

Creationism or ID is absurd and should not be taught in science class. It shouldn't really be taught anywhere, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 02, 2010, 12:21:17 PM
Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Whitney on July 02, 2010, 01:17:33 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.

Let's teach the kids about intelligent falling, flat earth theory, leprechaunism, holocaust denial theory, fake moon landing theory all as if they are worth entertaining as possible just because some loud yet uneducated people think they are valid.  Grade school is for teaching objective fact to the best of our knowledge provided modern study, not wild conspiracies and fringe philosophies....and it certainly is not for teaching religion; keep that in the home where it belongs.  There isn't even time in the already over burdened school schedule to include a fair overview of religious beliefs anyway....we an alarminly high amount of have kids who don't even understand basic math and science.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 02, 2010, 01:25:00 PM
Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.

Let's teach the kids about intelligent falling, flat earth theory, leprechaunism, holocaust denial theory, fake moon landing theory all as if they are worth entertaining as possible just because some loud yet uneducated people think they are valid.  Grade school is for teaching objective fact to the best of our knowledge provided modern study, not wild conspiracies and fringe philosophies....and it certainly is not for teaching religion; keep that in the home where it belongs.  There isn't even time in the already over burdened school schedule to include a fair overview of religious beliefs anyway....we an alarminly high amount of have kids who don't even understand basic math and science.

Oh dear. Looks like there's an echo in here. I've already said that the most common views should be made available to people. So that they can make up their own mind, rather than be dictated to by a self righteous self proclaimed elite as to what is true and what isn't. And Whitney, I know what you're doing. You're going through all the threads in which I'm posting, making a comment here and there, and trying to stir up a little squabble between you and I, because you're just itching to get rid of another theist. Some people call that fishing, although there's another word for it. Go on, you know you want to ban me. You want to keep the masterforum "pure", don't you. Go on, finish the job, gas me.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: karadan on July 02, 2010, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Oh dear. Looks like there's an echo in here. I've already said that the most common views should be made available to people. So that they can make up their own mind, rather than be dictated to by a self righteous self proclaimed elite as to what is true and what isn't. And Whitney, I know what you're doing. You're going through all the threads in which I'm posting, making a comment here and there, and trying to stir up a little squabble between you and I, because you're just itching to get rid of another theist. Some people call that fishing, although there's another word for it. Go on, you know you want to ban me. You want to keep the masterforum "pure", don't you. Go on, finish the job, gas me.


Creationism or ID isn't a common view. It is a fringe view, at best. If there's an echo in here, it's yours, by saying the same things over and over again even though we've ripped it apart several times.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Recusant on July 02, 2010, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"...Go on, finish the job, gas me.

I won't presume to speak for Whitney, but you might be interested to know that most often, as soon as somebody is known to have created a sockpuppet on this forum they are out of here.  The fact that you're still here making fatuous posts like the one above means that you've been given more slack than most.  The persecution card you're trying to play falls flat in light of this.  But keep trying, I'm sure you can get yourself banned if it's what you want.  It will be because of your own behavior though, rather than an imagined personal vendetta on the part of the site owner.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 02, 2010, 05:03:32 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.

Given that I am a tax-paying father of a 12-year-old boy, I have every right to voice my opinion on what should comprise the curriculum at his school.  It is your misfortune that the vast majority of people realize that teaching nonsense is no way to run a school.

Here in America, we accommodate the taste some have for myth and conformity by a fabulous little invention called "Sunday School", where those who wish to pretend that there is a god who cares about this universe can gather together to learn about how dinosaurs and men coexisted, and so forth.

ID is plainly bogus science, in that it is driven by an a priori notion.  Simply because many aren't scientifically literate enough to understand that does not mean they have the right to force their ignorance on my son.  You want it taught?  It already is, in the private sector, where such nonsense belongs.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Will on July 02, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Oh dear. Looks like there's an echo in here. I've already said that the most common views should be made available to people.
Are you suggesting facts are somehow democratic? I must respectfully disagree. As an example, a majority of people in the United States, as of 2007, believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Why did they believe this incorrect information? They were lied to and thus formed an incorrect understanding of the facts. What if creationists (who are in the minority), are being mislead (intentionally or unintentionally)? Shouldn't there be some objective judgment of the facts before they are presented to young people, people who may not yet have the critical thinking skills to figure it out for themselves? I certainly think so. The last thing I want is untruths to be taught to people who are supposed to be learning how the world really works. I'm sure you wouldn't want your children to be taught lies in place of truths.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Whitney on July 03, 2010, 12:10:30 AM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Oh dear. Looks like there's an echo in here. I've already said that the most common views should be made available to people. So that they can make up their own mind, rather than be dictated to by a self righteous self proclaimed elite as to what is true and what isn't. And Whitney, I know what you're doing. You're going through all the threads in which I'm posting, making a comment here and there, and trying to stir up a little squabble between you and I, because you're just itching to get rid of another theist. Some people call that fishing, although there's another word for it. Go on, you know you want to ban me. You want to keep the masterforum "pure", don't you. Go on, finish the job, gas me.

Since you want to be banned...I'm giving you ban for a week.

If I wanted a "pure" forum (as retarded as that idea is) I wouldn't have a theist moderator and would just make a no theists rule and ban any that sign up.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Squid on July 03, 2010, 03:15:30 AM
Quote from: "Filanthropod"I believe in evolution of the physical body, but I think people should be told about all the views which are out there, and then they can make up their own mind. By preventing people from knowing what others think, all you're doing is effectively forcing them to believe as you do. Also, people need to know what others think about different things, at the very least simply for the sake of knowing.

Public schools aren't the venue to discuss the "make up their own mind" issues, that's what colleges are for.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Martin TK on July 06, 2010, 03:38:54 AM
"Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.Filanthropod
Padawan Learner"

Ok, here's an idea, IF we have to teach, by your reason, creationism in school, then Churches have to teach evolution in Sunday School.  The problem with creationism is simply that is has NO basis in scientific fact.  There isn't any consensus among top scientists in the world who would agree that creationism has any merit at all, much less enough merit to introduce it to a school wide curriculum.  We don't teach the "science" of Santa Claus in schools, we don't teach fairies in school, and we can't prove that either of them do not exist any more than we can not prove that a tea pot is out in space, orbiting the sun; but we can be pretty sure that non of them do exist any more than god or creationism exist.

The ONLY factual evidence of creation is in the bible, and the bible is NOT a reliable scientific or historical work.  Now, I know that many, well meaning, theist scientists have attempted to create a science that explains the possibility of creation, but NONE so far have held up to scrutiny.  If we are going to introduce Creationism in schools, we might as well introduce the "flatearth" theory as possible fact, along with vampires, zombies, the tooth fairy, and big foot.  Some day they might all be proven as fact. :hmm:
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Martin TK on July 06, 2010, 03:46:36 AM
"Public schools aren't the venue to discuss the "make up their own mind" issues, that's what colleges are for."

Squid, this is the problem with Theists, they want their cake and eat it, too.  They want government to stay out of the church's affairs, they want to talk about exposing children to different ideas, and yet in every Christian Church in America, countless children are being brain washed into the "doctrine of faith" to believe there is actually great value in accepting the whole of the Christian Belief on faith alone, without question.

If you were to introduce the idea of allowing children to be reared in a neutral environment until they were old enough to make the decision to believe or not to believe, you would have a revolution at hand from the Christian Right.  But, we know that until a child reaches a certain age, he/she is not able to decide for themselves if they want to be a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an Atheist, and so, by default they are being subjected to systematic idoctination against their will into a belief system, that no matter how strong the evidence against it might be, they will dogmatically hang onto the religion of their parents throughout their lives.  That is unless they are strong willed or bright enough to grow out of it, and realize that it's all hocus pocus.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Filanthropod on July 10, 2010, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: "Martin TK""Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.Filanthropod
Padawan Learner"

Ok, here's an idea, IF we have to teach, by your reason, creationism in school, then Churches have to teach evolution in Sunday School.  The problem with creationism is simply that is has NO basis in scientific fact.  There isn't any consensus among top scientists in the world who would agree that creationism has any merit at all, much less enough merit to introduce it to a school wide curriculum.  We don't teach the "science" of Santa Claus in schools, we don't teach fairies in school, and we can't prove that either of them do not exist any more than we can not prove that a tea pot is out in space, orbiting the sun; but we can be pretty sure that non of them do exist any more than god or creationism exist.

The ONLY factual evidence of creation is in the bible, and the bible is NOT a reliable scientific or historical work.  Now, I know that many, well meaning, theist scientists have attempted to create a science that explains the possibility of creation, but NONE so far have held up to scrutiny.  If we are going to introduce Creationism in schools, we might as well introduce the "flatearth" theory as possible fact, along with vampires, zombies, the tooth fairy, and big foot.  Some day they might all be proven as fact. :hmm:

Hold on a second, where did you get the idea that I said that creationism has to be taught? I'm saying that it's best for all the common views to be taught. I don't really care whether or not a view is true, or has any evidence, or any of that, the point I'm making is that people should make up their own minds instead of being dictated to by both atheists and religious people alike, and to achieve that, the most common views being taught is the best way. History is full of liars, but history is still taught, and people learn from history. Many subjects feature incorrect information but the subject is still taught in a way that includes it, in order than people can have access to all views. Just because you don't believe in god that doesn't mean that people should not be aware of all the common views, both or and against, god's existence. In fact, if right now you had your wish and all the things that you disagree with (and I don't care what the reason is), weren't taught, it would harm your cause. It would backfire. Why? Because over time, people would forget completely about various ideas about god, and, over time, they would surface again just like they did the very first day that any human had any thought about a god, and as you know, it's only human nature that sooner or later, people will believe in god. In trying to destroy the whole idea, it would simply start again. So the best thing to do is to allow the teaching of all views. And then, if you want your say, you can have it, just like anyone else. Anything else is dictatorship, which would make you just as bad as a religious nutter. I'm not sure that you understand the distinction between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

Hi whitney, I see you spying on me.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Argie on July 11, 2010, 01:31:51 AM
Interesting debate, and very much I agree with those that think that the so called ID should not be taught as science, specially after a judicial rulling that clearly states that ID is NOT science... a very elegant way of calling it pseudoscience.  Public education and public schools should be free of all religious influence.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: TheJackel on July 11, 2010, 08:02:34 AM
They can teach Creationism in Science if they can show me how Consciousness is designed and created into existence, or how existence itself can be designed and created ;)
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Martin TK on July 11, 2010, 05:07:26 PM
[quote="Filanthropod
Hold on a second, where did you get the idea that I said that creationism has to be taught? I'm saying that it's best for all the common views to be taught. I don't really care whether or not a view is true, or has any evidence, or any of that, the point I'm making is that people should make up their own minds instead of being dictated to by both atheists and religious people alike, and to achieve that, the most common views being taught is the best way. History is full of liars, but history is still taught, and people learn from history. Many subjects feature incorrect information but the subject is still taught in a way that includes it, in order than people can have access to all views. Just because you don't believe in god that doesn't mean that people should not be aware of all the common views, both or and against, god's existence. In fact, if right now you had your wish and all the things that you disagree with (and I don't care what the reason is), weren't taught, it would harm your cause. It would backfire. Why? Because over time, people would forget completely about various ideas about god, and, over time, they would surface again just like they did the very first day that any human had any thought about a god, and as you know, it's only human nature that sooner or later, people will believe in god. In trying to destroy the whole idea, it would simply start again. So the best thing to do is to allow the teaching of all views. And then, if you want your say, you can have it, just like anyone else. Anything else is dictatorship, which would make you just as bad as a religious nutter. I'm not sure that you understand the distinction between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

Hi whitney, I see you spying on me.[/quote]

OK, but you are advocating that it be taught if you are advocating that ALL common views be taught, as creationism is a current view, albeit wrong.  See, schools are for teaching FACTS, not fiction, certainly NOT in a science class anyway.  I go back to my original statement that to teach anything religious in school is akin to teaching science in church, that's NOT what schools or churches are in the business of doing.

The very idea of teaching "both sides" in school wouldn't work from the simple fact that we live, at least in America, where religion has been given a "do not question" card and in order to teach both sides, you have to question religion and god, and that simply would not work in a country where the Religious Right has such a hold on government.  I do not see where teaching all views, where religion is concerned, at the K-12 level would be of any value.  Now, if a person wants all views, then once they are old enough for college, I would recommend that several religion courses be taken, including philosophy, logic, religions of the world, etc.

I do not see public education as the forum for teaching or exposing our children to religion, one way or the other, besides you would have diametrically opposed sides fighting over content, context, and delivery, unlike anything seen before.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on July 11, 2010, 09:07:31 PM
I don't have a problem teaching ID in a science class, so long as it is taught for what it is: an example of sloppy critical thinking, the dangers of a priori thinking, and how to not conduct honest science.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on July 11, 2010, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't have a problem teaching ID in a science class, so long as it is taught for what it is: an example of sloppy critical thinking, the dangers of a priori thinking, and how to not conduct honest science.
Yes, as an example of what science isn't!
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Martin TK on July 11, 2010, 11:45:44 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't have a problem teaching ID in a science class, so long as it is taught for what it is: an example of sloppy critical thinking, the dangers of a priori thinking, and how to not conduct honest science.

Now, on that I totally agree......
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: TheJackel on July 12, 2010, 12:08:30 AM
Quote from: "Martin TK"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't have a problem teaching ID in a science class, so long as it is taught for what it is: an example of sloppy critical thinking, the dangers of a priori thinking, and how to not conduct honest science.

Now, on that I totally agree......

+ 500 trillion to that! (one for every living cell in my body) :P
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: princesmith on November 27, 2010, 12:55:36 PM
The left dont want anything to do with God, and when bad things happen they ask where God was. Its like, you asked Him to leave!!
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on November 27, 2010, 05:52:58 PM
Quote from: "princesmith"The left dont want anything to do with God, and when bad things happen they ask where God was. Its like, you asked Him to leave!!

1)  I didn't ask "him" to leave.  He bailed out and left me hanging.
2)  I haven't asked where god is for 30+ years, because I konw where he is: in the minds of believers, and nowhere else.
3)  I'm pretty sure that Jesus supported socialism:

     a) He provided free health care to the poor
     b) He ran a food pantry which famously fed people bread and fish
     c) He advised rich people to sell everything they had and give the earnings to the poor.
     d) He warned rich folk that it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it will be for them to ascend.
     e) According to Luke, Jesus said that Heaven is the Kingdom of the poor.
     f) Jesus says in the parable of Last Judgment, "As you've done to the least of men, you have done to me."

These are all clearly socialist positions, but the parallels go further:

     g) If you do not agree with the party line, you will be shunned for all time.
     h) If you go against the word of the party, you will be sent to GULAG.
     i)  In worldly socialism, you cannot escape the prying eyes of the State; your kids, your mother, your boss will report your malfeasances.  In Christian socialism, God is everywhere and sees everything you've done.
     j) The first one to stop applauding Stalin was regarded as suspect.  They first one to stop praying to God is viewed as less faithful.
     k)  Catholics are staunchly against cremation, as they believe the soul must have a vessel when the dead rise.  Premier Krushchev said, "We will bury you!"
     l)  Like Christians, socialists tend to sanctimony.

... and the list goes on ...
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Troll god on October 29, 2011, 12:00:42 AM
I have three reasons why creationism shouldn't be taught in schools.

1-Because there are over 150 stories of creationism.

2-Because not even one of these stories has been proved to be real.

3-Because in the schools is already taught abiogenesis and evolution, both of these go in conflict with creationism, and that would confuse the students. Schools are not places to get confused, but to get smarter.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: princesmith on November 27, 2010, 12:55:36 PM
The left dont want anything to do with God, and when bad things happen they ask where God was. Its like, you asked Him to leave!!

I know that this is from quite some time ago, and I do not expect a response, but I need to make one thing abundantly clear:

I am on the left politically.

My faith is STRONG.

Please, do not ever confuse political orientation with faith.  Jesus would be very, very disappointed in you for that.

I also don't believe that creationism should be taught in public schools for all of the excellent reasons already described.  The government has NO place giving religious instruction, and that's essentially what creationism is.  Yes, even "intelligent design".  Because you know what?  If you teach one creation story, then you have to give equal time to all of them.  Do you really want children taught the Native American creation myths in biology class?  How about the Hawaiian one?  Or the traditional Greek one?  Egyptian?  Shinto?  Scientology?

Best to let the scientists teach science, and leave the rest up to the families and their houses of worship.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: jumbojak on October 28, 2012, 04:57:27 AM
Quote from: Tank on July 01, 2010, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: FilanthropodYou're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
In for a penny in for a pound as they say. No. I'm calling you a Moron, you walk like a Moron, talk like a Moron and quack like a Moron. Can I be more explicit? No I don't think so. I'll take my strips, but you'll still be a Moron spouting moronic ideas provided to you by other morons who think that using long words will make them sound smart through their dullard mindless and delusional maundering. People like you who hold ideas like you are singularly dangerous to humanity. You despoil all that is good about humanity. You deny real science and attempt to insert your own strawman in its place. Your behaviour and attitude are truly despicable, I have nothing but contempt for people like you and the ideas you spout from the pulpit of selfish insanity. I'm not scared of calling a moron a moron and you sir, are a moron.

That was beautiful Tank. It really pulled at my heartstrings and made reading this entire thread worthwhile.
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Tank on October 28, 2012, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on October 28, 2012, 04:57:27 AM
Quote from: Tank on July 01, 2010, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: FilanthropodYou're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
In for a penny in for a pound as they say. No. I'm calling you a Moron, you walk like a Moron, talk like a Moron and quack like a Moron. Can I be more explicit? No I don't think so. I'll take my strips, but you'll still be a Moron spouting moronic ideas provided to you by other morons who think that using long words will make them sound smart through their dullard mindless and delusional maundering. People like you who hold ideas like you are singularly dangerous to humanity. You despoil all that is good about humanity. You deny real science and attempt to insert your own strawman in its place. Your behaviour and attitude are truly despicable, I have nothing but contempt for people like you and the ideas you spout from the pulpit of selfish insanity. I'm not scared of calling a moron a moron and you sir, are a moron.

That was beautiful Tank. It really pulled at my heartstrings and made reading this entire thread worthwhile.

I'd forgotten that rant, thank you for reminding me  :D
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: Asmodean on October 28, 2012, 02:33:23 PM
Ah! Oldies revisited. I think I was gone while this was posted, otherwise, there might have been some Gray Rants in it too. Still, Tank did a fair approximation of Asmostyle.  :D
Title: Re: Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools
Post by: solidsquid on February 09, 2016, 11:20:08 PM
I totally missed this whole debate within this thread...it's like I post the first post and *poof* I was gone...all well. I'm sure there'll be other intellectual battles to be had in the future...