Why is creationism still taught in public schools?

one minor detail, this "molecule" could not have existed under primordial conditions nor do they explain how they got it from the primordial conditions.

you know full well i'm not "pushing god".
why you insist that i am is . . . a strawman perhaps?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The word 'creationism' is like the word 'racism', it has some unique meaning/connotation to most every individual.

A word with that many meanings can not be discussed really, until you mail down an agreed definition of terms.

Though people who avoid critical thinking, thus taking their unique interpretation of the word 'creationism' to be THE one, post away with stuff.

As this thread aptly proves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's be fair

Well, that's either explained in the longer paper, or the next step.

But you're arguing just like a creationist: Every time your argument—

"the hypothesis of abiogenesis has nothing for it and that life has never been observed coming from nonlife despite the many experiments to test it."​

—is met, just move the line.

Well, now that you mention it .... (Talk about straw men.)

"that's how it should be 'taught', as a possibility.​

You want God taught in the classroom "as a possibility", even though there's nothing for it, and God has never been observed—especially given the refusal of Its advocates to build an experiment to test It.

You argue like a creationist, moving the line every time you're met, because apparently the one thing that just isn't acceptable to you is that creationism isn't a science. It's a fucking faery tale, and faery tales don't belong in a science classroom.

Oh, but that's so unfair to students, isn't it? Well, fine. I think the Theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure, which says the Universe was sneezed into existence—hey, it's in a book—should be taught in science classes. As a possibility. You know, just to be fair.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it probably reflects the area. i never was taught any creationist theories and tbh was not taught that evolution is IT and that is IT either.

i dont see why either is necessary to teach because it is more of a personal opinion.

 

Why is creationism still taught in public schools?

I see creationism as a dimensional thing. Creationist are the proverbial flatlanders, unwilling to admit another dimension into their world. But Darwin came along and set loose a new dimension on the world, causing more cultural shock than any war known to man.

As such, persistent teaching of creationism in public schools is a measure of any country’s self-inflicted ignorance. And it’s the kind of ignorance that causes wars.

But it’s all good, I guess, for the sake of human evolution.

 

sadly until evolution is proven then to many Darwin is a quack with a butterfly net. i see both sides of the issue and believe in some forms of biological evolution but i dont just take someone's word for it. i am not religious at all either.

 

i say i see both sides of the issue but only to the extent that there is something missing and i am not implying any belief system or regimentation.

 

Creationism is not a theory, it's a myth.
In my CofE school days we said the lords prayer at assembly and had religious education classes, but evolution was briefly taught in biology class. We also had infrequent visits from the local vicar, but he usually ended up being heckled.

 

i was home schooled from grade 5 to 9. tbh, i dont ever recall being told specifically 'this is evolution' or anything like that at all, but otoh i was not told about creation theory, afa anything particular. that is why i look at it subjectively and not from an indoctrinated perspective.

 

post it then tiassa.
frankly i'm tired of wading through 5 or 6 web pages on this subject just to find "it wasn't life after all".
i do know this molecule could not have formed on primordial earth.

what's been pushed back?
to my knowledge life only comes from life.
i have no idea why you get so torqued over that.
i also have no idea why you find it impossible for there to be an area of knowledge we are completely unaware of.

no, i do not want "god taught in science classes."
teaching and mentioning as a possibility are two different things tiassa.
so far there is no reason to rule out the possibility.

consciousness maybe?

maybe "god" has but we never connected the two.
don't forget tiassa, we aren't on the same page here.
you are steadfastly assuming "i'm pushing god" or that i'm a "creationist" neither of which is the case.

what line have i moved?

i'll agree that ID and "a creator" are most probably "fairy tales".

it's not only unfair, it's a lie to lead them to assume that science has solved the riddle as to how we got here.

get stupid now tiassa.

 

Yes there is, nothing supernatural has been shown to exist! We don't teach fairy tales in science class.

 

consciousness and life.
nothing has shown either of these occurs naturally.

 

Both occur naturally. Both are the product of complex but purely material interactions.

 

Sorry I can't accommodate you

Sorry, I don't have a subscription to the journal.

Well, let's see:

"the main point here is to stress to our students that the origins of life (OOL) has not been solved, the hypothesis of abiogenesis has nothing for it and that life has never been observed coming from nonlife despite the many experiments to test it." (#18)​

And then, when presented with a 1996 BBC article, it becomes—

"one minor detail, this 'molecule' could not have existed under primordial conditions nor do they explain how they got it from the primordial conditions." (#21)​

—and—

"i do know this molecule could not have formed on primordial earth." (#30)​

It's a bit of an adjustment.

And your knowledge is a matter of will, as well.

So where does life come from, then? After all, you're not advocating "God" in this context, right? No "intelligent designer", right?

Oh, spare us the histrionics.

"Torque! Torque! The Beast needs more torque!"

(Rheostatics)​

You know what it looks like when I get my torque on.

In this case, that would be ...?

When you teach a student that something is a possibility, you are teaching that it is a possibility.

In scientific terms, "Intelligent Design" will be a possibility once someone develops a theoretical approach to demonstrating the designer.

The fact of consciousness suggests the "possibility" of God? How so?

See above, regarding posts #18, 21, and 30.

And yet you want it taught in science classes?

It would be. But science doesn't make that claim. We're within microseconds of the Big Bang, and damn close to, if not actually at, abiogenesis. There is still work to do, and scientists know it.

Not enough drugs on the planet to get stupid enough to satisfy you. And, hey, I gave up religion a while ago.

 

the posts i've made in this thread speak for themselves.
make what you will of them.

 

When new evidence turned up concerning the history of living beings, and a theory was invented to account for that evidence - late 1800s. The origin of living things then became a more serious object of attention, and some of the less reasonable hypotheses about it were set aside pending at least a smidgen of evidentiary support or realistic argument.

 

My question is who gives a crap? Seriously? Is it THAT important that we must figure out who or what we spawned from? We are here for usually no more than 100 years. That is an itty bitty teeny weeny spec in the grand scheme of time and the history of the universe. I don't care if I evolved from tadpoles, monkeys, or was created by some magic Gandalf looking guy in some other realm. I just don't care. What I do care about is living my life, while I have it for sure, in a good manner and upholding my own personal standards while helping those around me.

It just blows my mind how and why people argue of crap that really isn't that important to our daily lives. I don't care if there is a god or not. I don't care if there is an afterlife. And I don't care about the origins of the universe. Do you know why I don't care? Because it doesn't make a difference to me and how I live my life. Why? Because I'm happy with who I am and don't have the need to find some scapegoat for lifes negativities as well as for unanswered questions which really hold no value either way. We all have better things to do than to waste our time pondering such insignificant sillyness.

So in summary, my personal opinion is that creationism should be left out of schools. It's a waste of time with no scientific support.

 

You may have other things to do, but not better things to do. It is only through asking these questions that people can come to arrive at things like evolution in the first place. Asking the questions for some people, I agree, is probably nothing more than a waste of time. But other interested parties work on these questions their whole lives and everyone few generations make big scientific discoveries that actually have practical significance for you personally (antibiotics for example). Someone asked 'who or what we spawned from' and now because of that foundational scientific research other people were able to apply the ideas to drugs that you probably will use in your lifetime if you haven't already.

 

Evolution only in Canada - sometimes they pass a note to parents and make it optional. Never creationism that I know of. That is so ridiculous. Cult beliefs are to be taught at cult meetings.

 

i'll agree, i'll even go one further and say it's preposterous, but since when has "ridiculous" been any proof of fact?
am i being too nit picky? am i tracking the wrong target? neither? both?