Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[Rich Parsons]

Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.

I was comforted by the fact that 68% of respondants on the poll to the side said no--then I realized it's the CNN webpage, and online polls mean nothing anyway.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.

I was comforted by the fact that 68% of respondants on the poll to the side said no--then I realized it's the CNN webpage, and online polls mean nothing anyway.

Just another step towards the Christian Fundamentalist Country many of our populace and leaders think we need. You think the issues are bad about Gun and Abortion, just wait until we are debating which form of Christianity will be the model for the governmental recognized religion.

Talk about revolution. Religious wars are the some of the most bloodiest, in our history, and I for one think it would be a sad day. Yet, many beleive there should be more Morals in our society. Many believe that we should have better laws or more control over people or things. What about personal responsibility, and taking it once in a while. What about allowing techers the right to punish children with out loosing their jobs. We are raising genreations fo children who know no one can touch them. Who know that Mom and Dad will be there to take care of them always. Until they turn 18 and then do something, and now, the law will not allow them to go home, or for it to be sweeped under the rug. How about teaching our children there are re-actions for their actions. That every cause has an effect. If I am forced to bow my head to some other religion, then I believe this country will have failed. If my children were/are forced to follow the religion of others than that I just as bad if not worse.

I do not think it is bad to have religion in your life if you choose to have it. Yet, my opinion is that if I am forced then, there will be a problem.

My opinions on this subject

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin are turning in their graves as we speak...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin are turning in their graves as we speak...

Give me Liberty (* for religion and other important issues *) or give me Death!

 

[Darksoul]

-If it ever comes down to some group in power forcing religion, or religious view or morals on the United States, there will be a war, maybe not physical, but conflict is certain. And I for one, will not tolerate anyone forcing his or her view on me. You do have to fight for what you believe in. At the same time, realize the world won't be the same, and may even be worse. Kind of sad...


A---)

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.

Are you sure you meant that? If so, how do you justify it as a scientific theory?


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Are you sure you meant that? If so, how do you justify it as a scientific theory?

I think you misread Random's intentions, HHJH.

 

[heretic888]

-If it ever comes down to some group in power forcing religion, or religious view or morals on the United States, there will be a war, maybe not physical, but conflict is certain. And I for one, will not tolerate anyone forcing his or her view on me. You do have to fight for what you believe in. At the same time, realize the world won't be the same, and may even be worse. Kind of sad...

As this little incident in Wisconsin is demonstrating, all of that is already happening now...

 

[AaronLucia]

Creationism is just as important as Science, they are both held on faith.

 

[heretic888]

Creationism is just as important as Science, they are both held on faith.

The difference is that creationism has nothing but faith to back it up. Scientific theories like evolution have lots of empirical evidence to give grounding to their faith.

This is what in the common vernacular is referred to as "blind faith" --- i.e., faith without evidence or reason.

In any event, creationism has no place in a biology classroom. Not anymore than cultural relativism should be discussed in a geometry class.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, well.

Looking forward to:

1. Teaching that homosexuals will all get AIDS, die, and burn in hell for their opposition to Leviticus in sex ed classes;

2. Revisionists teaching history classes that a) the Indians deserved what they got, what with being primitives and all; b) the Holocaust never happened; c) the world will end soon, these being the End Times;

3) Forced home ec classes for girls, who need to be taught how to grow up and please their men;

4) The removal of subversive literature like, "Huckleberry Finn," and everything Judy Blume ever wrote from English classes;

5) Beginning every class in American Government or Civics with a revised Pledge, that will go like this: "I pledge my blood and honor to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Empire for which it stands, Ein Volk, under the First Fundamentalist Protestant Church of the One True Jehovah, with liberty and justice of a certain carefully selected group of wealthy white men."

After all, it's all just viewpoints based on faith.

 

[Darksoul]

-Tell us how you really feel. I couldn't help but notice your sarcasm. Education is such a cluter#!%* in this country anyways. Its hard to teach students about all the possiblities out there in the world, simply because of all the viewpoints that exist on all topics. Too much, too fast, the human freight train is out of control.


A---)

 

[Rich Parsons]

2. Revisionists teaching history classes that a) the Indians deserved what they got, what with being primitives and all; b) the Holocaust never happened; c) the world will end soon, these being the End Times;

As to 2 a) I say Go Home White Man and give me back my land. I was here first.

2 b) That is already being taught be select groups in Germany. They point out to their kids that what is being taught in school is all wrong and forced on them by others. ** Read UN and USA **, Nothing to quote for sources, only I remember reading mutliple articles on this topic.

2 c) This is the End, My one and only Friend the End. ** The End by the Doors **

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Are you sure you meant that? If so, how do you justify it as a scientific theory?

The inability to employ inflection over the internet does get annoying at times. For clarification, my comment was sarcastic.

Creationism is, in no way, shape, or form, a scientific theory. Those who say that it is think that something is a "scientific theory" if all it does is explain stuff. Science does that, but to qualify as a scientific theory, you need a hell of a lot more: a hypothesis, refutability, verification, all that stuff.

 

[Rynocerous]

I personally am a religious person.... er, um, but I don't go to church, I drink, I cuss, I use the Lord's name in vain, maybe I'm more spiritual. I personally don't like the fact that schools are trying to force this on children. Like posted earlier, creationism cannot be proven in any way shape or form. It hurts to say it because I am a firm believer in God, and christianity but I don't think it is right to "preach" that in school. It is soley based on faith. Some people rely on faith others on fact. School is for teaching fact, so I am opposed to this. Once again this is only my opinion.


Amen! LOL

Ryan

 

[parmandjack]

For all you who so vehemently voice your bias's couched as fact with regards to the creation of the world through evolution rather than by God, and who then state that "creationism" - is not real science, while evolution is.. I say this...

...lets make you you actaully understand what is being discussed... Science is either Operational, or Origin.... Evolutionary "science" is Origins, and has NOT been proven, and is based on a belief system by proponents of the faith. Creationism is also Origins based science, and as such, ahas as much "right" as a "theory" as the "theory" of evolution to be discussed in a classroom, where the Origins of life are being discussed... I have also provided excerpts from an article below.

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.
However,

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. Creationists are ‘up front’ about their acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, they recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

The important question is not ‘Is it science?’ We can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1

​

Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’2

​

So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.

Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I’m sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences. Organometallic chemist Dr Stephen Grocott, although having been through at least seven years of university training, later remarked [see The Creation Couple]:

‘Though I’d been working as a scientist for 10 years, I really only learnt what science was through Answers in Genesis. Some of the things people call “science” are really outside the realms of science; they’re not observable, testable, repeatable. The areas of conflict are beliefs about the past, not open to experimental testing.

​

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own ‘science’ and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so.

Do you believe in Hot Water?

Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science. It does not matter if you are a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, or an Atheist, pure water still boils at 100°C at sea level. However, the true Hindu might still think it is all an illusion, and some atheists embracing postmodernism espouse that ‘truth’ is an illusion. However, origins science is driven by philosophy. One’s belief system is fundamental to what stories you accept as plausible. Now if the majority of practitioners of origins / historical science have the wrong belief system (materialism), then the stories they find acceptable will also be wrong. So a majority vote of ‘contemporary scientists’ is hardly a good way to determine the validity of the respective stories. And origins science, or historical science, is essentially an exercise in story telling—Lewontin alluded to this story telling in the quote above. See also Is it science?

Define terms consistently!

It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’3 Many, perhaps inadvertently, perform this switching definitions trick in alluding to mutations in bacteria as corroborating ‘evolution’. This has little to do with the belief that hydrogen changed into humans over billions of years. The key difference is that the GTE requires not just change, but change that increases the information content of the biosphere. See also this discussion.

Many evolutionists proffer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science) as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics (operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which is probably the major reason that Mendel’s pioneering genetics research went unrecognized for so many years (Mendel’s discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwin’s idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational science—hence the neo-Darwinian synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc.

So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Popper’s notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Time and chance can’t explain life’s amazing design—get your answers here![/font]

Not By Chance!
Dr Lee Spetner

Dr Spetner, an Israeli biophysicist and expert information theorist, has dealt a death-blow at the heart of the neo- Darwinian story. The crucial battle- ground has always been the origin of new genetic information. Spetner shows that random mutations plus natural selection are an inadequate explanation of the encyclopedic information content in living organisms. This book is a must for everyone who desires to defend the Bible in this increasingly ‘educated’ society.See also the review by Dr Carl Wieland.

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE
​

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information (see the book Not By Chance (right). In fact, evolution never ‘predicted’ antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches exactly what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Q&A Origin of Life for papers outlining the profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Falsified but not abandoned

So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

Light in the darkness!

Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature. He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘re-arranged pond-scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The enemy of the Christian right-wing, as has often been pointed out, is the development of capitalism in the modern era. "Evolution," is merely the fall guy.

2. As a general rule, it is unwise to confuse a discourse larded with adjectives for actual analysis.

3. It is always extraordinary to see someone like Bertrand Russell used to support Protestant fundamentalist know-nothingism. (See? Adjectives. Shaky grounds.) It is always easier to call names ("the athetist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould,") than it is to look at reality.

4. A genuine intellectual response would involve something more than endless quotes which do not appear to be well understood by the quoter.

5. One continues to wonder what the Big Fear is, beyond the appropriate fear of modernity and social change. Is it the bit about the human race's origins in Africa, which means...that we're all...? Is it the continuation of the old Manichean hatred of material reality, which as Augustine pointed out long ago expresses a hatred of God's works? Is it an expression of a long-standing anti-intellectualism in American society, that used to be tied to a declaration of intellectual independance from Europe but has now shriveled into this sort of stuff?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The inability to employ inflection over the internet does get annoying at times. For clarification, my comment was sarcastic.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. That didn't seem right when I read it. I should have known better Spank me with a splintery wooden spoon. Please.


Aaron...given that you think that science is based on faith, can you please explain to us in 500 words or less the idea of the scientific method? Or did you skip school that day?


Regards,


Steve

 

[MGM]

Parmandjack,

That is the longest post I have ever seen, took me 8 "page Down" keys to get through it, impressive.

The reason why Christian creationism should not be allowed in public schools? Because fanatical psycho Christians can not under stand and except that the world will and has survived and thrived without their belief's. Your last paragraph shows that perfectly, we must all accept your view only, must read your selected biblical passages and realize that our life is worthless without your god.
The majority of Americans are Christian but the rest of the world is not but the majority of them had their ancestors forced to be. If a religion needs to spread by force it must be missing something fundamental or people would simply see it as a good choice and convert. If a religion that is very new in the scheme of world religions is incapable of acknowledging that other religions have existed before it and still do now how can it claim to have any gimlet of reality pertaining to it's theories of creation?

If Christian creationism is to be taught in schools than in fairness we need to add a few more, since you have proved that creationism is a science than others are also. I would like to see Roman, Greek, Norse and since we are dealing with a US school several of the Native American stories of creation should be added also maybe we can organize them by region North New England states learn the Mi'kmaq the Dakotas learn the Lakota myth and so on. There are hundreds more that could be taught but we will have to limit ourselves somehow other wise kids would have to go to school until they are 30 just to learn them all.