Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

What cat?  What bag?  What sweating smiley?  I'm confused.

[Chaos]

quote:Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>But making them think what they're taught is exactly what's happening.  They're only teaching one side of the argument, and hindering the thing you say you want, freedom.</STRONG>

That is a matter which can be discussed endlessly. But I'd prefere not to, lengthy discussion on sensitive subjects make me anxious.

[ February 17, 2008: Message edited by: Chaos ]

[Toady One]

I keep thinking CoS is some computer game's name acronym that I should know...

[Cthulhu]

Hmm.   Candy of Solitude, Carp of Slaying, Cape of Shaun, uhhh. Call of...  Steve.

[Forumsdwarf]

"Why is it such a problem to teach something other than evolution?"

Nothing, as long as it's not taught as science.  Evolution is a biological theory, one which succinctly explains the development of biological systems in strict accordance with the known laws of physics.  Creationism, were it a theory at all, would be a theory of cosmology which necessarily makes assumptions about the unknown laws of physics.  That its proponents place creationism, a quintessentially cosmological theory, in opposition to evolution, a biological theory, shows they don't understand the nature of their own theory, which is in fact because it isn't a proper theory at all but a philosophy.  It doesn't belong in a science curriculum.
The fact that creationists recognize the opinions of philosophy as a ghetto compared to the knowledge gleaned through science shows they understand on some level the importance of science, yet they're shockingly ignorant of the nature of the discipline itself, that the knowledge of science is arrived at by a process, the scientific method, and it is that process and that process ALONE which gives science its authenticity.
The fallacy of creationism is reminiscent of the Cargo Cult praying for DC-3's, pacifists substituting appeals to reason for actual reason, or the child soldiers of Liberia wearing women's clothes to make themselves impervious to bullets.  "No one dressed like this dies on the battlefield," they reasoned, "so dressing like this will protect me!"
Creationists similarly want to wield science as a kind of "truth totem", not understanding that true things are not true because science says they are but rather that science is an iterative method of drawing closer to that which is knowably true.  Abandoning the scientific method in the zeal to declare a thing true renders the knowledge so declared no longer scientific.  Even scientists are susceptible -- Carl Sagan once famously predicted that liberating Kuwait would trigger Armageddon.  We're still here.
I suppose on some level it doesn't matter -- anyone taught the scientific method can apply it critically to creationism.  Unlike religion science assumes error and is in fact mostly a protocol for correcting it.  Carl Sagan set a high bar for the global warming alarmists, and a simple examination of available evidence does the same to creationism.

[McDoomhammer]

quote:Hyperbole FTW?  

Mine or theirs?

Forumsdwarf:  Agreed.  It only becomes a problem where the religious viewpoint is taught with the pretext, said or implied, that it actually is a "scientific fact", without the scientific methodology or theory adequately included to counter it.  Unfortunately, I'm sure there are places and schools where that happens.

[Earthquake Damage]

quote:Originally posted by McDoomhammer:
<STRONG>Mine or theirs?</STRONG>

Theirs, obviously.

RE creation myths in public schools:  Teaching Creationism in contrast to the Big Bang implies (false) credibility as a theory.  There is also the problem of religious bias in the sense that it promotes one religion at the expense of others.  Why teach creation according to the Abrahamic tradition without also teaching the Zoroastrian, Confucian, Hindu, etc equivalents?  If you want to teach some sort of "Religions of the World" course, that's awesome (though probably better suited to more mature students -- high school, not elementary school), but teaching public school children exclusively from the Old Testament is bullshit.

[ February 19, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]

Note that my "in contrast to" comment basically says the same thing you said with you said or implied pretext line.

[ February 19, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]

[LOLKILLZ]

While religious internet-debates annoy me (they never go anywhere, nothing is accomplished), I will give my opinion. I don't care about religion as long it keeps to itself, religions (in America, most prevalently Christianity) should not get its hands in everything.
Replying to an earlier post, a religion is the idiots who follow it, otherwise it's just words on a page. If a religion is not judged by the people who belong to it, the only thing left to judge are the messages, which are meaningless if no one follows them.

[Wiles]

quote:Originally posted by Earthquake Damage:
<STRONG>Teaching Creationism in contrast to the Big Bang implies (false) credibility as a theory. </STRONG>

I think the big bang theory is just as concrete as a creation theory.

Science has pretty much developed into it's own religion of sorts. Whenever an alternate theory that is not in line with the mainstream pops up, a crusade of scientists and science lovers violently try to debunk it. (Sounds familiar, eh?)

Personally I'm not a strong believer in anything. I don't claim to know the secrets of the universe. Not knowing where life came from is ok for me. I'm just happy to be living on this wondrous planet.

[ February 20, 2008: Message edited by: Wiles ]

[Cthulhu]

quote:Originally posted by Wiles:
<STRONG>

IWhenever an alternate theory that is not in line with the mainstream pops up, a crusade of scientists and science lovers violently try to debunk it. (Sounds familiar, eh?)
[ February 20, 2008: Message edited by: Wiles ]</STRONG>

My favorite anti-creation outlash remains the Spaghetti Monster.

[McDoomhammer]

quote:Originally posted by Earthquake Damage:
<STRONG>
Why teach creation according to the Abrahamic tradition without also teaching the Zoroastrian, Confucian, Hindu, etc equivalents?
[ February 19, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]</STRONG>

Because they're wrong.  Obviously.  

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:It only becomes a problem where the religious viewpoint is taught with the pretext, said or implied, that it actually is a "scientific fact"

I'm reminded of a quote the exact text of which I can't remember, something about lies being the sinner's homage to virtue.
Anyway, back to the point: the fact that no thinking person would believe in Creationism in the first place until a zealot manages to attach the word "science" to it illuminates just how pathetic today's religions truly are.
At least praying for cargo has a certain honesty to it.  Creationists kiss the spurs of heathens and hope nobody will notice.

quote:Science has pretty much developed into it's own religion of sorts.

Garbage.  Science is based on skepticism, religion on faith.  They're opposites.

quote:Whenever an alternate theory that is not in line with the mainstream pops up, a crusade of scientists and science lovers violently try to debunk it.

Debunking theories is the primary purpose of science.
However, you do have a point, inasmuch as scientists often allow their ideology and personal aesthetics to taint their objectivity.
I call it "Saganism" in homage to Carl Sagan's apocalyptic theory of doom should America liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.
Anthropogenic global warming smacks of Saganism.

[Earthquake Damage]

quote:Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Anthropogenic global warming smacks of Saganism.</STRONG>

Once you sift through all the ignorant blather, I think the issue is less "zomg apocalypse" (lol The Day After Tomorrow) and more "how much of an effect are we having?"

[Wiles]

quote:  Garbage. Science is based on skepticism, religion on faith. They're opposites.

In theory, maybe. In practise, not so much. Whenever a scientist tries to rock the boat of science, others are eager to knock him off to protect their sacred and canonical theories. If you don't follow the herd, you're not going to have the respect of your peers (or the funding for your research).

[Forumsdwarf]

In coining the term "Saganism" I think I just agreed with you.

Saganism is the Flying Spaghetti Monster of science.