one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[franksolich]

Lets think that through and try it on for size, Coach:

(a) "This is a class in physics, where physics is described, analyzed, and discussed. Physics is but one of many theories about the the nature of matter and time, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about matter and time."

And

(b) "Since this is a class strictly about chemistry, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to chemistry."

That is the exact analogy, my friend.

Of course.

(b) is necessary because in a class discussion on one thing, the discussion can get sidetracked or even derailed.  Sort of like starting a history lesson about the Industrial Revolution, and the subject gets tied up with 19th-century urban sociology (a real-life example, and franksolich was the guilty person).

Teachers of history aren't generally experts on sociology, and besides, it's a history class.  A teacher of evolution isn't usually educated and knowledgeable about other theories of the origins of mankind, and so if things get derailed, it's a real mess, and a lot of exasperation.

And as for (a), the preceding one, absolutely nothing wrong with it.  There are people who disagree with physics (not me, any more than I disagree with evolution), and they just may be right.

The purpose of education is to broaden one, not to narrow one.

[Chris_]

Of course.

(b) is necessary because in a class discussion on one thing, the discussion can get sidetracked or even derailed.  Sort of like starting a history lesson about the Industrial Revolution, and the subject gets tied up with 19th-century urban sociology (a real-life example, and franksolich was the guilty person).

Teachers of history aren't generally experts on sociology, and besides, it's a history class.  A teacher of evolution isn't usually educated and knowledgeable about other theories of the origins of mankind, and so if things get derailed, it's a real mess, and a lot of exasperation.

And as for (a), the preceding one, absolutely nothing wrong with it.  There are people who disagree with physics (not me, any more than I disagree with evolution), and they just may be right.

The purpose of education is to broaden one, not to narrow one.

But it is NOT to inculcate the idea that all ideas are equal.

There is serious discipline behind what we call science, Coach.  To suggest it is malleable is like saying that Conservatism is fully malleable.

And people who disagree with Physics are, by definition, required to provide an alternative theory.

[USA4ME]

(a) "This is a class in evolution, where the theory of evolution is described, analyzed, and discussed.  The theory of evolution is but one of many theories about the origins of mankind, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about the origins of mankind."

I am aware of a science teacher in this area who does something almost similar to that.  When he gets to the evolution discussion, he points out that it's a theory, that it has many holes, and that it's only to be taken as a possible explanation, and that it's not necessarily the truth.

.

[Chris_]

I am aware of a science teacher in this area who does something almost similar to that.  When he gets to the evolution discussion, he points out that it's a theory, that it has many holes, and that it's only to be taken as a possible explanation, and that it's not necessarily the truth.

.

That teacher is teaching theology, not science. Unless he says the same for gravity, astronomy and other science topics -- which just makes him an idiot.

[USA4ME]

That teacher is teaching theology, not science. UNless he says the same for gravity, astronomy and other science topics.

That makes no sense.  Just because "science" claims evolution took place doesn't mean that it did.  When you're dealing with God, you're dealing with the supernatural, something science doesn't take into account but which otherwise might be an explanation.

Besides, he has a Phd in science, and he's a Christian, so I trust him.  I didn't say he wasn't teaching the material, only that he makes it clear that just because science claims it to be a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is that way.  Science can't explain Jesus raising Lazarus after he had been dead for 4 days, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

.

[Chris_]

So you think thank teaching science means you teach "God doesn't exist."

You sure do liike putting words in other peoples' mouths.

It is.  Science is science and is SILENT on faith.  Faith is faith and can add no new knowledge or discovery to science.Yes.  Because it isn't.

Your faith is in science.

I am amazed you use a computer.  I assume you think it runs on "holy food" or something.

Once again you express your ignorance of faith.  That's really sad.

Science is a very clearly document series of disciplines that uses a very rigorous set of standards and methods to expand true human knowledge about our physical Universe.  Without these there would be no medicine, no electricity, no technology -- at best we would be stopped at the year 1000 BC.

So you really do worshp science.

Why do you want to end science? 

Never said that.  There you go again...making statements for others.

Putting faith as an integral scientific component is the same as saying "just pray for everything." 

...and yet you have a profound faith in science, but cannot see the connection between them.

It is people like you who will make sure the next generation's great discoveries and scientific centers of gravity will be India and China.

Way to go.

That's just babble & nonsense.  Most unfortunate.

[Chris_]

We KNOW Gravity is a Force and it is measurable at an average of 98 ft/sec²  We KNOW that it is not pushed down by angels.

Ok, science boy...Gravity is not a force.  It's an acceleration.  Didja miss that physics class?
You can describe gravity all day long.  You can tell us what it does and how to measure it.  You can tell us how it works, but you can't tell us why.   You can try, but to each answer, we can still ask why.  Eventually the answer will be "I don't know".

[franksolich]

That teacher is teaching theology, not science. Unless he says the same for gravity, astronomy and other science topics -- which just makes him an idiot.

Actually, I think it would be good--and professional--for teachers of a subject to, at the start, frankly admit, that what they are about to teach is not necessarily the final answer, the final Truth.

"To be a good teacher, one must first be humble."

I used to think that above quote was from Albert Einstein, but since figured out it was from an eastern European Yiddish folk-tale, but it pretty much describes Albert Einstein anyway.

The primitives on Skins's island the other week had a long discussion, squibble-squabbling around a particular bonfire, at the Biblical phrase, "fear of God [or the Lord] is the beginning of wisdom."

We all know how amusing the primitives are, when they try to "explain" Christianity (or any other religion) to us; in fact, probably about one-tenth of the threads in the DUmpster forum here involve such cases, because the primitives are so funny, and so willfully ignorant and voluntarily stupid.

In this case, the primitives conveniently forgot that the word "fear" in 1608 meant something different than what the word "fear" means today in 2008.

It meant in 1608, awe and respect and acknowledgement, not what it means today.

"To be a good teacher, one must first be humble."

In college, I had a rabid hard-core Marxist-Leninist teacher of Elizabethan drama, a visiting professor from Yale.  He seemed old to me, but probably about the time he was only circa 40 years old.

Despite his absurd political ideology, he was a great teacher, and as the year went on, a great friend.  I think it had to do with his attitude, "This is what I know, and this is what is generally accepted [about Elizabethan drama], but no one person, no one group of people, knows all, and so I, or we, just may be wrong."

A great teacher.

The Evolution Establishment is, fundamentally, viciously liberal, and I'm surprised they don't pay more attention to one of their icons, Mao Tse-tung who, in the mid-1950s, declared "Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend."

Of course, Mao Tse-tung, being a liberal and a socialist, didn't really mean all these pretty words, but they were pretty words.

I on the other hand mean it, and encourage it in any way I possibly can; since no human knows all, or can even know all, for the maximum possible human enlightment, it's necessary to include, and consider, as many points of view as possible.

I've already said here, and elsewhere, that I have no problems with the theory of evolution; it all makes sense to me (the point being that I do have problems with proponents, advocates, propagandists, of the theory of evolution, who do more harm than good to their cause by their strident narrow-mindedness).

However, I'm always uncomfortably aware that many things that "made sense" to me in the past, have since been proven wrong.

It's okay to be 90% certain about something, but to be 100% certain about something is sheer folly.

[Chris_]

Ok, science boy...Gravity is not a force.  It's an acceleration.  Didja miss that physics class?

Gravity is a Force (and it is 92 m/s²  or 32 f/s² -- I mistyped)  F=ma. That is why it is squared.

The fact that knowledge is not absolute is an interesting questions for drunk sophomores to pore over in the dorm room. In real life, there are things we know -- scientific facts.  TToE is one of those things and is as well described as physics, chemistry, astronomy and all other sciences.

[Chris_]

That makes no sense.  Just because "science" claims evolution took place doesn't mean that it did.  When you're dealing with God, you're dealing with the supernatural, something science doesn't take into account but which otherwise might be an explanation.

You deal with God in theology or philosophy, not science clas

Besides, he has a Phd in science, and he's a Christian, so I trust him.  I didn't say he wasn't teaching the material, only that he makes it clear that just because science claims it to be a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is that way.  Science can't explain Jesus raising Lazarus after he had been dead for 4 days, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

.
TToE doesn't address whether Jesus existed and performed His Miracles or not.  As I keep pointing out, science is silent on God and Jesus.

[Chris_]

You sure do liike putting words in other peoples' mouths.Your faith is in science.Once again you express your ignorance of faith.  That's really sad.So you really do worshp science.Never said that.  There you go again...making statements for others....and yet you have a profound faith in science, but cannot see the connection between them.That's just babble & nonsense.  Most unfortunate.

I give you one more chance to make some sense of your posts:

Do you understand science?  Do you understand physics? Do you understand chemistry?  TToE is no different.

I understand science.  I have faith in God.  God gave us the ability to explore and understand His Universe.  To eschew that in favor of a simplistic answer is to spit in His face.
 

[Chris_]

I understand science.  I have faith in God.  God gave us the ability to explore and understand His Universe.  To eschew that in favor of a simplistic answer is to spit in His face.

...yet that is exactly what you do.

PROV 19:3 The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.

2 TIM 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 PETER 1:20  But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

***

Main Entry: acceleration of gravity
Date: circa 1889
: the acceleration of a body in free fall under the influence of earth's gravity expressed as the rate of increase of velocity per unit of time and assigned the standard value of 980.665 centimeters per second per second —called also g

Your definition comes from a static model.  Mine does not.

[Chris_]

...yet that is exactly what you do.

PROV 19:3 The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.

2 TIM 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 PETER 1:20  But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Those quotes are interesting but do not answer the question I asked of you.

***

Main Entry: acceleration of gravity
Date: circa 1889
: the acceleration of a body in free fall under the influence of earth's gravity expressed as the rate of increase of velocity per unit of time and assigned the standard value of 980.665 centimeters per second per second —called also g

Your definition comes from a static model.  Mine does not.

I stand corrected -- Gravity ON EARTH is a Force.

[USA4ME]

You deal with God in theology or philosophy, not science clas

He doesn't mention God, he simply points out that just because science claims that humans came from slimey algae doesn't mean that's how it really happened and they shouldn't feel compelled to beleive it.  That doesn't diminish at all the classroom material.

This isn't a topic of science like other topics, it's one that crosses into religious beliefs of others.  If a teacher can make the student, especially 14 and 15 year olds, feel more comfortable in the classroom that he isn't going to somehow force the student to disregard his religious beliefs, then that makes for a better learning environment.  Doesn't mean he doesn't teach the material the way the textbook presents it.

.

[Chris_]

He doesn't mention God, he simply points out that just because science claims that humans came from slimey algae doesn't mean that's how it really happened and they shouldn't feel compelled to beleive it.  That doesn't diminish at all the classroom material.

This isn't a topic of science like other topics, it's one that crosses into religious beliefs of others.  If a teacher can make the student, especially 14 and 15 year olds, feel more comfortable in the classroom that he isn't going to somehow force the student to disregard his religious beliefs, then that makes for a better learning environment.  Doesn't mean he doesn't teach the material the way the textbook presents it.

.

And I ask again, if someone believes that angels make the wind blow does that mean we preface every physics class with the same preamble?  TToE is no different than any other science topic -- it is just one where people don't like the implications.

[USA4ME]

And I ask again, if someone believes that angels make the wind blow does that mean we preface every physics class with the same preamble?

Show me where there's people who believe that angels make the wind blow. You see, that's not an issue.  There are people, however, who believe the Bible when it says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, and since I believe in God I'm one of them.

.

[Peter3_1]

How long is a "day" to God? A single revolution of the Earth? The Galexy? The Universe? The Creator is not obliged to give us this information, if we want to know, exactly, we are obliged to figure it out.

[USA4ME]

How long is a "day" to God? A single revolution of the Earth? The Galexy? The Universe? The Creator is not obliged to give us this information, if we want to know, exactly, we are obliged to figure it out.

I did a study on that, and I encourage anyone else to do the same.  I found that the Hebrew word for "day" in the verses in Genesis is the same word used to denote a normal 24 hour day in the rest of the OT.

Given I believe the scriptures when it says that God is all-powerful, then God creating all things in six 24 hour days doesn't bother me.  He could have done it all in a snap if He wanted to.

Personally, I believe when God created the earth it was already aged; it would have had to have been to sustain life in the days immediately following creation.  For example, God created Adam on the 6th day.  On the 7th day, did Adam look like he was one day old as we know one day old?  Or did he appear to be, let's say, 20 years old?  IOW, Adam appeared older than he actually was.

The study of the earth is fascinating to me, but in the greater picture it doesn't effect me one way or the other.  If God had wanted us to know every detail of creation, He would have spelled out every detail.  He didn't.  That tells me He provided enough info for us to believe He is who He says He is.  It also tells me that it isn't that important, not compared to the reason we are here, which He spells out in detail in the rest of the scriptures.

.

[Peter3_1]

So...you think the Creator engages in base deception? I don't. Ithink that 4000 years ago those writing Genesis might have misunderstood time as we know it to be.

[franksolich]

So...you think the Creator engages in base deception? I don't. Ithink that 4000 years ago those writing Genesis might have misunderstood time as we know it to be.

Now, I have to be careful how I say this; I don't think this is what happened, but I think this is something that could have happened.

The first sin was, of course, pride; the idea that man could be God, knowing and understanding as much as God.

God, being the First Cause of all things, and God being All-Powerful, could have created, instantaneously, in a split-second, a world in which scientific evidence would seem, or actually even be, millions of years old.

Instant 4,000,000-year-old rocks and stuff.

So as to befuddle the proud and the arrogant.

God after all does have a sense of humor.

[CactusCarlos]

God, being the First Cause of all things, and God being All-Powerful, could have created, instantaneously, in a split-second, a world in which scientific evidence would seem, or actually even be, millions of years old.

Instant 4,000,000-year-old rocks and stuff.

So as to befuddle the proud and the arrogant.

Or dinosaurs.  If God left too many clues what would be the point in faith? 

[USA4ME]

So...you think the Creator engages in base deception? I don't. Ithink that 4000 years ago those writing Genesis might have misunderstood time as we know it to be.

No, I don't believe he engaged in deception.  If indeed He did create an aged earth, then it was for a purpose.  If mankind misuses or misintreprets that purpose, then that's not God's fault.

As far as the writers of the Bible, I believe them all to be inspired of God.  IOW the things they wrote were exactly what God wanted them to write.  So when you say people 4000 years ago "might have misunderstood time as we know it to be," I know the point you're making.  But since I believe the writings to be "God Breathed," then to me it would be saying that God misunderstood time as we know it, and that the inspired writers wrote inaccurately about the creation, which I don't believe.

For the record, I'm not interested into a deep discussion of this unless someone wants to do it via PM.  This is the Religion Section, and as such I'm not interested into getting into a tussle where 20 people are reading and something is misunderstood or taken the wrong way and feelings get hurt, which likely wouldn't happen, but I'd rather not take the chance.

.

[Peter3_1]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=woe+to+ye+lawyers&do=Search


http://www.teslasociety.com/einstein.htm

this does it for me.

[djones520]

Or dinosaurs.  If God left too many clues what would be the point in faith? 

He (God) had no problem with faith during the time covered in the Old Testament.  He talked to everyone, did amazing acts, destroyed civilizations, etc...  Yet all of a sudden (once the religions start to become organized) it all shifts to faith.

During a time when humanity didn't number a fraction of what it was, he made himself known to everyone time and time again, yet during a time when the world is exploding with humans, and religions number more then any of us know, with countless people not adhering to the "one true faith", it is all supposed to be based off of faith and word passed down by one man 2,000 years ago.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Chris_]

Show me where there's people who believe that angels make the wind blow.  You see, that's not an issue.

How about those who believe the world was created by a Great Bear?  Or those who believe in a pantheon? Those who believe that demigods created the world and guide the weather? Who gets to judge which belief is better? You?

Those who put belief over knowledge are doing the same thing.  The idea that "belief" trumps the scientific method is the way to anarchy and the supression of knowledge -- certainly the end of knowledge expansion.

There are people, however, who believe the Bible when it says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, and since I believe in God I'm one of them..

So how old is the Earth?