Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for posting. I'm a believer in "theistic evolution" (I didn't even realize there was a term for this until I saw it on the video you posted ). I have a hard time understanding why people would take a theology book that was written thousands of years ago by desert wanderers and consider it the definitive source for pre-human scientific history. In fact, there are two creation stories in the bible back-to-back (to show to the reader that there are different permissible theories, I believe), so they can't both be true.
But NK, it's "creation SCIENCE," isn't it? At least that's what they call it when they try to convince idiots on school boards to let it into science classrooms.
Absolutely not. It's not just about separation of church and state, but it is really the preferment of a single approach to Christianity, namely the denominations that believe in the literal reading of scripture.
Second, the Creation 'Science' I've seen is not really science, but rather the choice of a thesis followed by summoning up facts to back up the thesis while ignoring contrary evidence.
Evolution isn't a theory. It's a demonstrable fact. Even as we speak, evolution continues to work in our world. The very fact that you walk into your doctor's office every year to get a new flu shot is a demonstration of evolution in action. For the flu viruses have adapted to adverse conditions in order to survive. The same is true of today's antibody resistant illnesses.
I don't care if they teach creationism in school as long as every classroom that teaches it also has to do some selective breeding of fruit flies throughout the year and document what happens.
If we want to have to continue importing scientists from abroad, then have at it. Otherwise, teach science in the classroom and religion in Sunday school.
I think the creationism-in-schools debate actually misses the bigger point about so-called public schooling. Ultimately it doesn't make much difference whether or not creationism is taught there, because the lived experience of schooling is what counts; the surface-level curriculum is secondary and plays host to an endless array of convenient distractions for the public (for example, the creationism-in-schools debate) that serve to divert popular scrutiny from the schooling institution itself.
IMO what's really significant is that while we try to get a handle on this seemingly-intractable public disagreement about creationism and schooling, the fact that the controversy is staged on the turf of the existing school system is pretty much unacknowledged and unnoticed. But shouldn't a simple discussion about creationism come before a discussion of how to work it into the schooling system? Wouldn't we need to organize our thoughts, get a handle on just what the subject is, and see if we can resolve a few things, **first**? What's with the over-hasty push to get school involved?
More to the point, let's ask how we came to the present situation. Can you tell me what's wrong with the following analysis:
We must have agreed a long time ago that whatever our disagreements (about creationism or other matters), the first thing we should do is put together an elaborate formal system (now called school) to train up-and-coming generations as one big mass, and that once we have that gigantic institutional superstructure in place, we can get down to the little matter of what to teach them based on what we both believe to be true and important in life (keeping in mind that we ourselves don't necessarily agree on very much to begin with)?
Isn't something backwards here?
The answer, of course :-) is that we are merely encouraged to think of school as our personal collaborative project for society, when in reality the facts about school say it is something different. This illusion of school as popular civic project is the greatest myth in our country's history and is the fuel that keeps the schooling institution running.
So the most important words in this thread's title are the last ones: In Our Public Schools. They loom like a shadow over the greater humanistic question of Do You Advocate Creationism?
Private and parochial schools have been teaching creationism along with the 10 commandments AND the Bible for decades and their students have far excelled their public school counterparts in literally everything from academics to relationships to careers. The problem isn't creationism. The problem is liberalism.
But NK, it's "creation SCIENCE," isn't it? At least that's what they call it when they try to convince idiots on school boards to let it into science classrooms.
Thanks for posting!
It's as much "science" as the theory of evolution. I'm not suggesting we teach in depth Biblical education...but there is nothing wrong with suggesting that it's a possibility that the universe was created.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I have a hard time understanding why people would take a theology book that was written thousands of years ago by desert wanderers and consider it the definitive source for pre-human scientific history. In fact, there are two creation stories in the bible back-to-back (to show to the reader that there are different permissible theories, I believe), so they can't both be true.
