Does anybody really believe in Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) anymore?

[SD Nihil]

That's fine if they want to put forth another class that teaches creationism. I'm simply saying regardless of the form both theories should be given chance to be heard in schools. Creationism is a theory, evolution is a theory. Neither are fact. They are the two big theories of how the universe got here. So again regardless if it is another class or taught in the same class matters not to me. The point is it needs to be taught. Both sides need to be given the chance.

 

I am totally against a public school teaching Creationism only. I am against a public school teaching just evolution. I think people should be given a choice.

 

To me it sounds like your saying Creatonism isn't valid and shouldn't be given a chance to be heard. I think Evoutionary theories should be heard too. So I'm taking the stance of neither side I think. Hey if there is a third big theory I want that to be heard in schools too. We are a nation of ideals and we should give apposing viewpoints equal audience to be fair and not disenfranchise either side.

 

You say Creationism isn't a theory. Well I say Evolution is a theory. Evolution hasn't been proven as fact, neither has creationism. Neither side can prove for certain how the universe was started from other than the big bang.

 

Neither can prove where the big bang came from. Did a being do it, was the ball of all the universe always there. We cannot say for certain. But regardless if there are two theories, 10 theories, or how ever many, they should be given a chance to be heard.

 

Evolution isn't fact, and Creationism isn't fact either. You can't prove either one. That's why they are theories. I'm all for the debate in schools.

[Achilles]

That's fine if they want to put forth another class that teaches creationism. I'm simply saying regardless of the form both theories should be given chance to be heard in schools.

Please stop using that term so carelessly. They are not "both theories". One is a scientific Theory that is supported by a mountain of evidence and countless observations. The other is superstitious wishful thinking. They are not the same thing at all.

 

And as I alluded to earlier, in order to avoid violating the establishment clause, such a class would need to be a survey which discusses not just the christian creation myth, but all creation myths.

 

Creationism is a theory

Lower-case "t" theory (as in "hypothesis"), maybe, but debatable.

 

evolution is a theory.

The ToE is a capital "T" Theory. Big difference.

 

Neither are fact.

Facts are what go into a scientific theory, not come out of. This statement is a non sequitur.

 

They are the two big theories of how the universe got here. So again regardless if it is another class or taught in the same class matters not to me. The point is it needs to be taught. Both sides need to be given the chance.

Should we be teaching that the earth is flat in science class too? It's a "theory" held by some.

 

I am totally against a public school teaching Creationism only. I am against a public school teaching just evolution. I think people should be given a choice.

You're against people learning science in a science class, but for them learning non-science in a science class? What purpose do you think science education should serve? Please answer this for me.

 

To me it sounds like your saying Creatonism isn't valid and shouldn't be given a chance to be heard.

I am absolutely saying that creationism is not a valid scientific theory and should not be taught in a science classroom.

 

I think Evoutionary theories should be heard too. So I'm taking the stance of neither side I think. Hey if there is a third big theory I want that to be heard in schools too. We are a nation of ideals and we should give apposing viewpoints equal audience to be fair and not disenfranchise either side.

If new hypothesis emerge and can survive the scientific method, becoming established Theories, then yes, I agree 100% that they should be taught as well. But that isn't what's being proposed here.

[SD Nihil]

I'm visually impared and it can be hard for me to find spelling errors. You still know what I mean. And I have as much right as anyone here to give my opinion.

 

So you are edgnoledging it's a theory. I will call it what I wish. You have your opinion and I do of mine.

 

Again let people vote on if both schools of thought should be taught in school or not. Let's not end the debate which can not be decided.

 

You may have theories and evidence as to how this animal evolved or things like that. But we don't know how the universe got here besides the big bang. How was all that material in one ball come from. Who made it. Was it always there. These things we can speculate about, theorieze, but cannot prove. We can have those with experience try to peice together their theory, but it can't be proven. Neither can creationism.

 

So that is why it should be a debate in schools. Calling it wishful thinking is your opinion. So let both opinions have debate.

[Vaelastraz]

 

When you say "prove" what exactly are you talking about? Science is not math. We cannot prove scientific theories the way we prove propositions in math. Math is axiomatically-deductive, science is not.

 

So I guess by "prove" you actually refer to having gone through the scientific method. Well evolution has, creationism, or intelligent design, has not as it's not science.

[EnderWiggin]

I'm visually impared and it can be hard for me to find spelling errors. You still know what I mean. And I have as much right as anyone here to give my opinion.

Sorry, but irrelevant.

 

Achilles wasn't correcting your spelling, he was pointing out the conceptual difference between a "Theory" and a "theory" since they are very different terms.

 

@Topic: Yes, I'm for teaching both.

 

Teach the 6-day then God rested bullcrap in a theology class, and teach evolution in a biology class.

 

There.

 

_EW_

[Alexrd]

Teach the 6-day then God rested bullcrap in a theology class

 

That's fundamentalism.

[EnderWiggin]

That's fundamentalism.

 

Oh, so then the people who want us to teach both would like teachers to get up in front of the class and say "....and that's all about evolution. Oh, don't forget that some people think God had a hand in all that."

I don't think that's what they're looking for.

 

Obviously those who want it taught in schools are talking about said 6-day scenerio.

Thanks anyway.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

I'm visually impared and it can be hard for me to find spelling errors.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. However my point isn't about spelling errors; it's about incorrect term usage.

 

The lay use of "theory" is a very different term that the scientific use of "Theory". Confusing the two causes people to make huge mistakes in reasoning.

 

You still know what I mean.

Yes, I absolutely understand the point you are trying to make. As politely as possible, I am trying to point out that you are wrong.

 

And I have as much right as anyone here to give my opinion.

You do, however that doesn't mean your opinion is right, based on facts, supported by evidence, etc.

 

So you are edgnoledging it's a theory. I will call it what I wish. You have your opinion and I do of mine.

For what feels like the millionth time, I'd like to point out that "theory" does not mean the same thing as "Theory". Calling both thing "theories" is an error because we're not comparing comparable things. Apples and oranges, as it were.

 

Again let people vote on if both schools of thought should be taught in school or not. Let's not end the debate which can not be decided.

Sorry, science is not a democracy. Science is a meritocracy. Good ideas are promoted. Bad ones are not. There is no "vote".

 

Creationism/ID is either good science that deserves to be taught in the science class or it is not. I don't think leaving it up to a bunch of ill-informed ideologues is the best way to ensure the future of species.

 

You may have theories and evidence as to how this animal evolved or things like that. But we don't know how the universe got here besides the big bang. How was all that material in one ball come from. Who made it. Was it always there. These things we can speculate about, theorieze, but cannot prove. We can have those with experience try to peice together their theory, but it can't be proven. Neither can creationism.

With all due respect, none of this has to do with the Theory of Evolution. God could have created the universe, dictated the physical laws, set the planets in motion, planted the seeds for life and then left everything for evolution to take over and it wouldn't invalidate the Theory of Evolution in any way, shape, or form. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanism for how life changes; not how the universe began or how life came into existence in the first place.

 

So that is why it should be a debate in schools. Calling it wishful thinking is your opinion. So let both opinions have debate.

I don't see where you answered my question regard flat earth vs round earth.

 

Whether you realize it or not, you seem to be arguing that the viewpoints satirized in Vaelastraz's comic are valid. Is that really how you want to go on record?

[SD Nihil]

Let me ask you though. If there are good ideas and bad ideas who determines what is a good idea and what isn't what group of peple. Because ultimately its opinion of what is a good idea and a bad idea through someone's adgenda. Theory and theory. The only difference is a capitalisation. How are the same word different other than that. I'm confused on that.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Let me ask you though. If there are good ideas and bad ideas who determines what is a good idea and what isn't what group of peple. Because ultimately its opinion of what is a good idea and a bad idea through someone's adgenda. Theory and theory. The only difference is a capitalisation. How are the same word different other than that. I'm confused on that.

 

No group of people determines what is a good idea in this sense, evidence does, facts are not subject to opinion, otherwise they'd just be opinions. As Achilles said, "Science is a meritocracy."

[EnderWiggin]

Let me ask you though. If there are good ideas and bad ideas who determines what is a good idea and what isn't what group of peple. Because ultimately its opinion of what is a good idea and a bad idea through someone's adgenda. Theory and theory. The only difference is a capitalisation. How are the same word different other than that. I'm confused on that.

 

I think the answer to your question is:

 

A good idea is good because it has merit, not because it is liked by the general populous. So..... no group of people

 

Perhaps this will finally put to rest your "let's vote on everything" argument?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Theory and theory. The only difference is a capitalisation. How are the same word different other than that. I'm confused on that.

I provide a couple wonderful links earlier on the page. Since you obviously didn't bother with them, I find myself pondering whether trying to add anything here is a waste of my time. I'll contribute as an act of good faith, however I'll caution that intellectual laziness isn't exactly held in high esteem in these parts.

 

Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein

Date: 1592

 

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

 

2: abstract thought : speculation

 

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

 

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

 

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

 

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

As you can see, the word "theory" can be used to describe several different things.

 

You are making the assumption that #5 means the same thing as #6b, which is not the case.

 

More here:

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

 

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

And again, there is this.

[SkinWalker]

That's fine if they want to put forth another class that teaches creationism.

 

Sure. As long as this sort of superstition doesn't occur in the public schools my tax dollar funds.

 

I'm simply saying regardless of the form both theories should be given chance to be heard in schools. Creationism is a theory,

 

Full stop. Creationism is superstition. It is not a theory. A theory is a set of facts and tested hypotheses surrounding a concept that explains in scientific terms some phenomenon of the natural world. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a superstition to which there are no tested hypotheses, no facts supported by evidence, and no scientific explanations of the natural world. Moreover, if it were deemed necessary to teach creationism in public schools, which creation myth should be taught? The Christian myth? The Navajo? The Egyptian myth of creation? The Enum Elish? Perhaps the Popul Vuh. Many of these pre-date christian mythology by many centuries and, while Christian religious superstition dominates in the West, the sum population of some of adherents to some of these myths could exceed the Christian. And any one of them stands an equal chance of being correct as the Christian myth of creation.

 

evolution is a theory.

 

You got one right.

 

Neither are fact.

 

Evolution is a fact. Pure and simple. There are some disagreements with regard to some of the mechanisms of evolution, but to deny evolution occurred is basically to admit being undereducated or, at the very least, that you didn't pay attention in High School. By the way, any High School in the United States that doesn't adequately teach evolution in the science classroom is undereducating its students. Those schools should be penalized by not awarding full credit when their students decide to go on to universities.

 

Both sides need to be given the chance.

This is nonsense. It would be akin to saying that just because there are those who deny that the Holocaust occurred, both sides should be taught. Or that since gravity is just a theory, gravity dissenters should be given equal voice in the public schools. Or astrology should be taught along side astronomy.

 

I am totally against a public school teaching Creationism only. I am against a public school teaching just evolution. I think people should be given a choice.

 

There is no controversy. There is only one side of this issue: evolution. The contender has no scientific standing and is only a superstition. Moreover, saying it should be taught in public school science classrooms is like saying that science should be given equal voice in the Church. There is no tradition of scientists beating down the Sunday school doors demanding that evolution be taught, that it be given equal voice to Creation mythology.

 

To me it sounds like your saying Creatonism isn't valid and shouldn't be given a chance to be heard.

 

Precisely. Not in the science classroom. Keep that nonsense in Sunday school.

[Tommycat]

Actually I think it would be good to have a theology class. As an elective. And of course not teaching only one religion. It might help people become more understanding and tolerant of other religious beliefs. I wish I had been introduced to Hindu customs before I made myself feel stupid for telling some guy that he has a mark on his neck... then feeling even dumber when I said, "I thought it was supposed to be on the forehead."

 

note: for those that are not aware, the dot signified the devotion to their god. ONLY women place the dot on their forehead.

[ET Warrior]

Actually I think it would be good to have a theology class. As an elective.

I assumed that was pretty standard, they offered a world religions class at my high school and I came from podunk nowhere.

[True_Avery]

Actually I think it would be good to have a theology class. As an elective. And of course not teaching only one religion. It might help people become more understanding and tolerant of other religious beliefs. I wish I had been introduced to Hindu customs before I made myself feel stupid for telling some guy that he has a mark on his neck... then feeling even dumber when I said, "I thought it was supposed to be on the forehead."

I agree that a theology class would do people good, but not entirely sure if it should be a required class or not.

 

It would definitely expand people's horizons beyond the beliefs of their own household, which happens surprisingly little even in modern day. The comments I'd hear from people in High School made my skin crawl.

 

note: for those that are not aware, the dot signified the devotion to their god. ONLY women place the dot on their forehead.

In Hindu, the spot between the brows is said t be the 6th Chakra for "Concealed Wisdom", or Divine Sight.

 

In Tantra, this chakra is the exit point for kundalini energy.

 

Both are to protect against demons and bad luck as well, both are worn only by women, but the more modern usage is a beauty mark for women as the dot can be ornamented quite lavishly.

 

In India, however, it is used as a sign that the woman is married, much like a ring in the west. This is applied through Sindoor power initially at the marriage.

 

Chinese Women also used to do this, but primarily for decorative purposes.

 

I assumed that was pretty standard, they offered a world religions class at my high school and I came from podunk nowhere.

Was not even offered at my school, or any high schools in my area.

[Tommycat]

I agree that a theology class would do people good, but not entirely sure if it should be a required class or not.

 

It would definitely expand people's horizons beyond the beliefs of their own household, which happens surprisingly little even in modern day. The comments I'd hear from people in High School made my skin crawl.

I'm thinking more along the lines of you don't want them getting their cultural education from talk radio....

 

 

In Hindu, the spot between the brows is said t be the 6th Chakra for "Concealed Wisdom", or Divine Sight.

 

In Tantra, this chakra is the exit point for kundalini energy.

 

Both are to protect against demons and bad luck as well, but the more modern usage is a beauty mark for women as the dot can be ornamented quite lavishly.

 

In India, however, it is used as a sign that the woman is married, much like a ring in the west. This is applied through Sindoor power initially at the marriage.

 

Chinese Women also used to do this, but primarily for decorative purposes.

Hmmmm dangit... I still got it wrong... see why I need the education haha...

 

 

Was not even offered at my school, or any high schools in my area.

Mine either... obviously.

[SD Nihil]

What it sounds like to me is the scientific community has their own definitions, language, and rule of law like the medical community does. Meaning it doesn't conform to the society it is operating in. Like how in the medical community you learn latin and to be able to communicate with someone that doesn't speak your language, but you both can understand terms language wise to be able to communicate and speak on a issue, problem, work together on something, etc.

 

However, in a democracy or republic they like voting on everything under the sun. This may be why it is accepted more in countries without the freedom to vote rather than those that are because of this aspect of freedom. Meaning they can reject your thinking and definitions. Whereas in dictatorships, comunistic type of societies they are use to taking as the end to the argument all that they are taught. Well for the most part. Margin of error in thvt not evetrything functions perfectly.

 

I know that in school if it's something they don't care much to put into long term memory often students will just remember things just to pass a test then discard that knowledge based on their interests and freedom to persue other interests related to their job, career, hobbies, etc. But there is less of this filtering in societies like I said communistic or dictatorships in that they are told this group based on these test scores scored higher in this so they will have this job no matter if they are not interested in doing that job.

 

So in short republics/democracies will accept or reject scientific law based on their societies norms, culture, their rule of law, etc. Whereas dictatorships and those type soceties will accept scientific law in that they are more conditioned to do so.

 

As for teaching myths, etc in private schools if you say your for that, there is another problem though. Politically there are those that wish to marginalize/deminish private schools and prevent parents from sending those to these places of education. Places that don't accept vouchers, and those that cannot afford to though they want to cannot get into private schools due to financial reasons seem to overrule the desire to go there. So those individuals are disenfranchised from learning creationis. So you see if you want things like Creationism to be taught in private schools, but if they are disenfranchised to do so by other societal laws then you are in a way forcing people to go to public schools and learn scientific law.

 

I hope you guys understand I'm trying to be neutral and speak from a stepping back from the two apposing viewpoints in an attempt to reach a compromise. We have smart people here and who knows maybe we can work out some ideas on this nook on the internet.

[Achilles]

What it sounds like to me is the scientific community has their own definitions, language, and rule of law like the medical community does. Meaning it doesn't conform to the society it is operating in. Like how in the medical community you learn latin and to be able to communicate with someone that doesn't speak your language, but you both can understand terms language wise to be able to communicate and speak on a issue, problem, work together on something, etc.

Yes, I believe that I spent several post pointing out that this was a matter of terminology, but I am glad to hear that we are now both on the same page.

 

Considering that the scientific community is international and spans hundreds of years, I think it is a good thing that there is a common language that everyone can use. For reasons that I hope are obvious, it cannot "conform the society it is operating in" in the sense that you mean it.

 

However, in a democracy or republic they like voting on everything under the sun.

I used the topic of slavery earlier and it was ignored. I'll raise it again here and hope for a different result.

 

Should we vote on slavery too?

 

So in short republics/democracies will accept or reject scientific law based on their societies norms, culture, their rule of law, etc. Whereas dictatorships and those type soceties will accept scientific law in that they are more conditioned to do so.

This sounds like something that you just made up.

 

We don't vote on whether the earth is flat or germs cause infections. It isn't a democracy vs. dictatorship type thing. Science is science.

 

As for teaching myths, etc in private schools if you say your for that, there is another problem though. Politically there are those that wish to marginalize/deminish private schools and prevent parents from sending those to these places of education. Places that don't accept vouchers, and those that cannot afford to though they want to cannot get into private schools due to financial reasons seem to overrule the desire to go there. So those individuals are disenfranchised from learning creationis. So you see if you want things like Creationism to be taught in private schools, but if they are disenfranchised to do so by other societal laws then you are in a way forcing people to go to public schools and learn scientific law.

Public schools should provide young people with a standard level of education. Either we want them to understand science or we don't. If we do, then we should teach it. If we don't then we should not.

 

Trying to indoctrinate people that non-science = science is bull****.

 

We can have a separate discussion re: the value of waivers and public schools vs. private schools if you would like, however the topic for now is whether or not non-science belongs in the science classroom.

 

I hope you guys understand I'm trying to be neutral and speak from a stepping back from the two apposing viewpoints in an attempt to reach a compromise. We have smart people here and who knows maybe we can work out some ideas on this nook on the internet.

I don't get that impression at all. In fact, I've seen you make very little effort to gain any understanding of the topic, so I have a difficult time accepting that you're trying to bridge some gap in good faith.

 

There is no compromise to be sought here. Either ID/Creationism is good science or it is not.

[SD Nihil]

The amendement in the U.S. Constitution against slavery is within the U.S.'s rule of law which like you said scientific law doesn't conform to a society. I think that's what you meant that scientific law doesn't conform to the society it's operating in, not that it can fonform a society. Meaning it cannot transform a society to meet its will if it is a republic/democracy. Symantical errror you probably didn't mean to do and you probably meant scientific law cannot conform to a society. Meaning both entities cannot change each other in that they are independent of each other, but yet intereact with each other. Society and scientific law depending on the society have different interactions and results depending on the one factor of where that scientific law is based in. Man am I getting wordy. lol.

 

Some things in general societies have a concensus in. Some don't wish to accept concensuses. And others think it's a matter of opinion based on that soceities idology. So it just depends on who accepts what as fact in their societies. There are some indian tribes who don't wish to have technology at all. So they might not want to accept comon in generally accepted social facts. To which what we call or use the term for them facts. They don't.

 

So if you don't speak as in the relm of societies and you speak of the whole planet including those who don't accept sociitial norms then it's just a matter of choice and opinion.

 

So yeah some of those tribes that believe the Sun made stuff or stuff like that then yeah there are those who believe in some form of creationism as in an unsean being made stuff. Not specifically believing in the actual Creationism we are refering to which might have to do with the Cristian religion. But then again maybe you mean Creationism as in all religions thinking things were made by non creationial means. It just depends on what your definition of creationism is.

 

Hey Achillies you got a nice mind there. I too am glad we seem to be on the same page. Or at least in the same hum not chapter, maybe set of topically related pages. Agg look at me I'm getting all symantical. lol.

 

I brought up vouchers and the whole private school thing, well it was brought up and I spoke more on it. Anyway, it's just to be consistant if you want it taught in specific societies tha allow such things as a private school to teach other ideals then then there has to be some way of allowing their functionality of that blood flow to them of people. ANd if it is hindered by other means in that society that allows the private school it's kinda a controdiction.

 

Saying yeah I'm for it being taught in that society in form of private schools, but let's hinder them from having the capcity of having the same flow of people to them. Kinda a controdiction. But yes we can have a seperate topic on this. I hope you'd be consitant in that private schools and teaching of both creationialism and scientifical law would have good intake of people by not hindering the functionalaty of the creationialism taught establisments.

 

I am curious since you brought up indoctornation. That seems to be a term only seen as bad in their term by freedom based societies. Do you consider Creationalism or Scientific Law currently showcasing indoctornation methods in general any society or specific societies or not. Please elaborate your example if so.

 

When you get down to it it's all interperatation, adgenda, societal norms, that societies laws, different idologies, etc. Lots of factors and we are speaking specifically here on one idology of Creationialism which I think I already answered by the fact that yeah non sociatal tribes might. Of course that depends on two things. If they say that in their language or if we say it if they don't have a language. So it is viewpoint and who is adgnoledging it. Ah making me think Achillies. SD like.

[Achilles]

The amendement in the U.S. Constitution against slavery is within the U.S.'s rule of law which like you said scientific law doesn't conform to a society.

You're dodging.

 

Forgetting that you earlier suggested that we scrap the constitution and put everything up for a vote, my point is that there are some things that we recognize as not being negotiable.

 

We don't put a lot of effort in to trying to find some happy medium between enslaving others and not enslaving others. Likewise, we shouldn't expend a lot of effort on how to teach both good ideas and bad ideas.

 

I think that's what you meant that scientific law doesn't conform to the society it's operating in, not that it can fonform a society. Meaning it cannot transform a society to meet its will if it is a republic/democracy. Symantical errror you probably didn't mean to do and you probably meant scientific law cannot conform to a society.

Are you actually reading my posts? I suspect that you are skimming them and nothing more.

 

Meaning both entities cannot change each other in that they are independent of each other, but yet intereact with each other. Society and scientific law depending on the society have different interactions and results depending on the one factor of where that scientific law is based in. Man am I getting wordy. lol.

Science cannot conform to society because there is no one society in which it exists.

 

I brought up vouchers and the whole private school thing, well it was brought up and I spoke more on it. Anyway, it's just to be consistant if you want it taught in specific societies tha allow such things as a private school to teach other ideals then then there has to be some way of allowing their functionality of that blood flow to them of people. ANd if it is hindered by other means in that society that allows the private school it's kinda a controdiction.

You can teach a world religion course in any school, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, I wish they would. The surest way to get people to reject religion is to teach them religion.

 

I am curious since you brought up indoctornation. That seems to be a term only seen as bad in their term by freedom based societies. Do you consider Creationalism or Scientific Law currently showcasing indoctornation methods in general any society or specific societies or not. Please elaborate your example if so.

There is a difference between "educating" and "indoctrinating". Teaching someone how science is done has benefit. It teaches them how to think, not what to think. Indoctrinating someone to a religious viewpoint does the opposite.

 

I don't think we need to look very far to find examples of people unwilling to examine their religious beliefs critically because doing so causes them to find conflicts between the logic and what they've accepted as "true".

[SD Nihil]

I read. I was just making sure that is what you meant which it was that you meant to say science cannot conform to a society rather than what I thought you accidentally said which was society conforming to science. Don't worry about it. I can get a little picky with symantics. I have a analytical/ameable personality with a side of intellectual.

 

Anyway, you said you think thy should teach religion in public schools since that would be the best way to disprove it. Okay well I believe an earlier poster said they wouldn't want that to happen since they didn't want their tax dollars to go to it, but was okay with it being taught in private schools. Just pointing out there is a disagreement there.

 

I'm not trying to dodge. I'm just presenting things from a neutral standpoint and speaking on both sides of the issue. Since if I did pick to play the role of one side or another it'd just probably go no where with either side.

 

Like I said both sides have their own opinions, thinking, etc. Please see the Jesus man topic thing. Point is regardless of being proven whatever religion doesn't really care how they are seen or what science says. Science thinks they are foolish.

 

But again to the title of this topic yeah I guess there are those non technology using uncivilized tribes that believe in Creationalism as well as the religous communities. I really am not sure what else you want me to say.

 

Oh and well so okay religion can indoctornate. Do you think though that parts of the scientific community through politics can indoctornate for an adgenda? Don't you think that if religion can do it that science can too?

[Achilles]

I read. I was just making sure that is what you meant which it was that you meant to say science cannot conform to a society rather than what I thought you accidentally said which was society conforming to science.

Please show me where I "accidentally" said this.

 

Achilles said: "For reasons that I hope are obvious, it cannot 'conform the society it is operating in' in the sense that you mean it."

 

Achilles also said: "Science cannot conform to society because there is no one society in which it exists."

 

I guess I'm not seeing where I was unclear.

 

Don't worry about it. I can get a little picky with symantics. I have a analytical/ameable personality with a side of intellectual.

Interesting.

 

Anyway, you said you think thy should teach religion in public schools since that would be the best way to disprove it. Okay well I believe an earlier poster said they wouldn't want that to happen since they didn't want their tax dollars to go to it, but was okay with it being taught in private schools. Just pointing out there is a disagreement there.

I remember a sentiment similar to that being expressed regarding teaching christian creationism in public school (which is illegal). However the point that a few others and I have tried to make is that you can teach about all the religions - all the creation myths. Not the same bag.

 

I'm not trying to dodge. I'm just presenting things from a neutral standpoint and speaking on both sides of the issue. Since if I did pick to play the role of one side or another it'd just probably go no where with either side.

I think I've already called shenanigans on this once. If you are genuinely trying to be impartial, then I regret to inform you that you've failed horribly. You've made next to no effort to understand one position and rush to the defense of the other. That's called "holding a bias".

 

Like I said both sides have their own opinions, thinking, etc. Please see the Jesus man topic thing. Point is regardless of being proven whatever religion doesn't really care how they are seen or what science says. Science thinks they are foolish.

I wouldn't presume to pass judgment on an individual. The positions they hold and their reasons for holding them however...

 

Oh and well so okay religion can indoctornate. Do you think though that parts of the scientific community through politics can indoctornate for an adgenda? Don't you think that if religion can do it that science can too?

I don't know how one could be "indoctrinated" into critical thinking. Science is the systematic and disciplined acquisition of knowledge and understanding. Indoctrination is blindly accepting a position without questioning it. Hopefully you can see how these concepts are at odds with one another.

[SD Nihil]

What do you mean by same bag? Don't worry about the whole conform thing. Like I saidsymantecs. I being an analytical minded individual can get a little nit picky about word choices and meaningless stuff like that. Maybe the bag thing you said is nothing too. But I'd like to know what you meant by it.

 

And I'm not being biased. Just because I don't agree or say I disagree with you or whatever doesn't make me a creationist or a person on the religious side. It does make me one who is going to bring up this side's contradiction, an apposing view to what they might say. But in no way am I going to pick your side or the religious' side. Both sides I can role play against. If I wanted to. But I don't choose to. And I don't think it'd do a thing to pick a side. All it would do is create an endless debate without end where no side is going to change the other's mind. The point is you don't know if I am for your view, Creationialsm's view, ifI am putting on a front, ifI am role playing, or if I am actually supporting you, but just am not saying it, or not. The thing is I really don't care if you think I am apposing you. It is not my intent. My intent in this thread is to not give into either side's bait. I don't care for a non constructive argument. I am only posting here on these political threads recently so that both sides can somehow toss their biases aside and come to a compromise to appease the two sides. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to think I'm not.

 

So with doctorenation you can't think of anything at all. Religion can have corruption in it how can science not have that too. Be consistent. Both have human beings in it. Al humans can be corrupt, dishonest, have agenda, twist word, faine ignorance, and can have some political agenda. And you honestly come up with one. Science has been in extended for longer than some civilizations. Does religion like science have the capacity for corruption, political agenda, and indoctrination? Are you honestly saying that companies can have indoctrination and be corrupt, Religion can be corrupt, but science cannot is incapable of corruption and indoctrination? To be consistent wouldn't be possible for all man to have the capacity for these bad things? Man is greedy, corrupt, can have a political agenda, and all organized groups outside of society, work aside society, and non society are all man. So how can man in this grouping not be capable of these bad things. All laws operated by all man and so all man can do wrong.

 

So I ask again to be consistent can all man including those within the Creationalism realm and the scientific realm have political agenda, and can be corrupt, and can indoctrinate? You gave an example of how those in the Creationalism realm can indoctrinate, but what about in the scientific realm. I applauded that you gave an example for the one, now please provide for another meaning the other sides. Both can do indoctrination. I would like to have 1 example for both. Your not biased because I know you'll come up with one for the other side.And I know you are not biased. Does eugenics ring a bell for one side. Does persecution ring a bell for the other. Now lets see you come up with one for each.

[SkinWalker]

I don't know how one could be "indoctrinated" into critical thinking.

I should think the same way one can be "drowned" in thirst.

 

And I'm not being biased. Just because I don't agree or say I disagree with you or whatever doesn't make me a creationist or a person on the religious side. It does make me one who is going to bring up this side's contradiction, an apposing view to what they might say.

 

There is no "opposing" view to evoluiton that is either rational or legitimate. I would be like holding an "opposing view" of gravity. This is the part you aren't getting. To advocate "teaching both sides" is to admit being either under-educated or favoring superstition. If its the former, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unless you willfully decline to accept that education.

 

I don't care for a non constructive argument.

 

If you're "not taking a side" as you claim, then you aren't involved in an argument. You're merely making whimsical statements. I suspect, however, that you *do* have a side and that you're pretending to be "neutral" in a conflict that is polar and without neutrality: either you are superstitious/ignorant or you aren't. If you're ignorant, I challenge you to educate yourself. Visit your local library and pick up a copy of Miller's Biology (Ken Miller is devoutly religious, by the way, and just as devout an advocate of evolution).

I am only posting here on these political threads recently so that both sides can somehow toss their biases aside and come to a compromise to appease the two sides.

 

There is no compromise. Superstition cannot and shall not be taught in the science classes of public schools or schools that accept public funding via vouchers. Period.

 

So with doctorenation you can't think of anything at all. Religion can have corruption in it how can science not have that too.

 

I have to be frank and point out that some of your passages in posts above I'm having a hard time following you because of poorly constructed sentences. This is an example. I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying here or in the remaining portion of that paragraph or the last. Please elucidate. Or, better yet, don't.