This therad seems to be haeding towards doom and lockdown…we need to clean up and start over…
I’m going to do something new to chagne things up a little.
We will do this-
I will post a topic (pm me if you want to ask a question)
We will let both sides have two days to post replies…then the opposite side will post for two days in reply…then once the topic is completed we will start another one…
There will be no group attacking…
All questions will be asked in thrid party form as much as possible (no attacking people)
Please post wisely becuase you will only get two posts per turn.
Pm me if you have any questions you would like people to respond to…
You just said some very nasty things about Catholics, and then you say this. Lawl.
Anyway…
Back on topic, in concerns to guidelines for teaching evolution and creationism in school-
In my opinion, they should BOTH be taught in their respective subjects. Evolution should be taught in Biology lessons, because a lot of Biology is founded on Evolution, and the two are connected.
Creationism should be taught in Religious Studies lessons, because it is the belief of a religious group of people.
In this way, students learn of both theories and get to choose what they want to believe. This is actually how it is being taught at schools in Britain at the moment (at least, it’s what I was taught). Admittedly, in the Religious Studies lessons, it was very one-sided when Creationism was put forward as an idea, because out of my entire 250-odd year, there are probably, at the most, five or six religiously inclined people. But we were taught about Creationism, and about the Bible, and taught to respect it and those who believe in it.
At the same time, we were taught Evolution in Biology, though in very little detail. It was only brought up once or twice, and that was that. And as far as I’m aware, no students have felt forced to believe in one thing or another.
So, that’s what I think. Teach both, and let the students themselves decide.
Oh, and, one more point- do I feel sorry for those poor Muslim people right now, who are being tarred by the same brush because some of those of the same faith- a minority, may I point out- have comitted some unspeakable actions. Though I guess the same has happened with the Jewish, and their money-orientated stereotype. It’s so unfortunate.
Hmph. As I clearly stated, if you be mature enough, stubbornness should not have blinded you from my intention placed in my previous statement.
As for giving the students the option of believing what is the accurate theory out of those that are taught, it is futile. If most people - most teenagers, especially - have the ability to see the truth instead of theorizing about the work of God; if Christians, Catholics, religious literalists and alike could let go of their religious binds (or at least, loosen them) for a while and try and make out what is and what’s not from the theory of evolution instead of contradicting it, then lizardgirl, that which you had pointed out would function and we would not have long, tedious debates such as this today.
No. Even if religious individuals and non-believing atheists alike are taught about evolution and creationism without any biasness toward either theory, that is not to say that either party will remain neutral in their views.
Of course, not all people are that close-minded. Nevertheless, take a look at the state of our world now and tell me that people can actually stay neutral towards matters, work towards what is accurate and right and not make this method of teaching an ineffective one?
Giving you the benefit of a doubt, say that the teenagers actually accepted the neutralism between the two theories and make attempts in discovering the truth, what is to say that they will remain as open-minded for long? And if their beliefs start to alter, what effects will be dealt to our society? Is it going to change this education system in the future? Will there even be a protest - heck, a riot - against this simple method of teaching?
Yes, I do agree that it is beneficial, but of course, the specifications must be considered.
When I was in High School, we are taught evolution in biology, simply because Biology means the “Study of life” and from a scientific stand point, it makes sense that evolution is taught. Now that doesn’t mean that the teachers are forcing down beliefs on to the students. This is a violation. But I think it is good that students learn the theory of evolution and are aware that there are more than one views of how humans came on to the world.
What kinda ticks me off is that very seldom talk about the creation. You see, the only history we covered in my High School class is every thing from the medieval times on to present day. We never go back to the very begining. That is probably why the Creation is rarely talked about in class.
Creationism belongs in religious class, evolution in science. Perhaps they should give teachers more resources on evolution too since they appear to be doing a terrible job at teaching it.
A113: you are skating on thin ice. You completely ignore my posts it seems. I gave you all the evidence you needed as to how the Grand Canyon was formed and I also asked you some questions which you have ignored. How very rude of you indeed.
Here for your pleasure again are some scientifically based and factual descriptions of how the Grand Canyon was actually formed. And they aren’t Wikipedia so don’t fret.
Now if you would kindly answer my questions from the previous thread and not dodge them.
Creationism, if taught in schools, should only be taught in religious or philosophical classes and not as a science because it isn’t. Evolution has every right to be taught in science classes because it is considered as much fact as the Theory of Relativity. If you take Evolution out of the science classroom, you may as well take out all the other “Theories” like Relativity, because they are as much a theory as Evolution is.
In other words, bawpcwpn, you are implicating that there’s no truth whatsoever to creationism, even if it might provide some new insight scientists would never perceive if they are stoned in merely the research of evolution itself only.
In that case, if I am to put in your context of words, if you would take out the possible opportunity to learn about certain hidden information in creationism, then you might as well take out the subject of history and archeology as well.
So what you are saying is that scientists haven’t ever considered that Creationism has some answers that they aren’t trying to achieve? Well Evolution has only been around 200 years or so, and I’m quite sure Creationism was the accepted theory as to how life evolved for most, until Darwin and other scientists made some observations and said “Hang on, this stuff about God making everything from scratch in one go doesn’t seem entirely correct, this makes sense though.”
Since then scientists have been rigorously testing this idea and found it to be the most logical for the origins of life. Evolution doesn’t say how everything came to be in the very beginning however, and I think you are getting confused a tad there. It says that life evolved to what it is today and wasn’t made exactly as it is today, bar some “Microevolution” as you put it, by a God. Did you know Charles Darwin’s wife was a staunch Christian, and I’m sure Darwin and other Christians can accept (like the Catholic Church and the Church of England) that God could have set the wheel in motion, or planted the seed and life evolved to what it is today.
I’m happy for Creationism to be taught at schools, just not in a Science classroom, because it doesn’t belong there and isn’t a scientific theory. In fact, in Australia, religion isn’t a big issue at schools, but I have still learnt about all manner of religions in my Philosophy and reason class, and I’ve learnt about reasons for certain religions and also the reasons against. Do not let the fact that The Theory of Evolution has the word “Theory” in it, because it is considered as fact by the majority of scientists around the world, and is considered as much a fact as the Theory of Relativity.
As I have said previously, the onus should not be on us to disprove religions beliefs, but should be on the religions to prove their religions to us.
Just because the Theory of Evolution has been claimed a fact doesn’t mean Creationism is made fiction. Yes, education-wise, Creationism won’t benefit students in learning about prehistory and how life came to be. Nevertheless, one must not ignore that fact that there might still be some points the scientists missed out. I’m not claiming there are, but the possibility - regardless of how minute it might be - is still there, and in a science classroom, it would be productive for students to participate in the research of the truth to Creationism. It’s not necessary for them to make it their main subject, but it would be a good co-curriculum activity altogether.
About the verses in the Bible that some of you find just not right, I’d like to clear some things up.
Not every single word in the Bible was what God said. Meaning, like the verses about women being silenced, for example, that was what people back then thought. Their cultures, lifestyles, and the things they were going through at that time were usually more harsh than today. It was not God who said it was a shame for women to speak in church. But the Bible also includes quotes from what people back then said.
In addition to that, not everything should be taken so literally! The part with removing body parts is an expression. The part with the blemishes and crookedness, that is also an expression. It does not mean to look at appearances and judge, but it is talking about people’s hearts and spirits, on the inside. You know what I mean.
You have to look at the big picture, the background of it. Understand what they are going through at that time, how different things were, and the ‘hidden message’, or at least figure out what they meant by it. Don’t just point out one verse you disagree with and take it wrong, jumping to conclusions that it won’t make sense.
There were some sayings and stuff back then that people who lived in that time understood, but we might not.
So wait, if some things aren’t God’s word, how does one decipher what is God’s word, and what is to be taken at face value? There doesn’t seem to be any key to deciphering this.
You know, Catholics can be some of the most liberal Christians out there. Yes, some can be very pious and be all “This is what you have to believe and that’s that” But there are many others (like me) who dont take it all so literally. The Pope himself doesnt like how I handle my religion. How do I know that? I remember when he got elected i heard on tv someone saying that he doesnt like “Cafeteria Catholics”-those who pick what they want to believe and ignore the rest. Well, that’s kinda what I do. No, I dont ignore it, persay, but I certainly dont agree with everything the Catholic Church says I should. But you know, all religions are created by people. And people make mistakes. So none of them are perfect. Religion is really just the way someone chooses to worship (or not worship) the god (or gods) they believe in. That’s different from having faith or belief in a particular god (or gods).
And just to clarify, I probably define intelligent design differently than the standard way. So maybe that was the wrong term to use. I asked if that was weird because ultimately I support a little of both theories. I dont take the creation story literally. I believe the science behind the earth being millions of years old and having once been in a state of primordial ooze or molten lava and whatnot. I support evolution (though not to the full extent that Darwin takes it) in the sense that yes, living things evolve. They have to, to adapt like I said already. But I support creation in the sense that this was not all an accident and that someone (okay, God) had to put everything into motion, which again, I mentioned already. I think someone (okay, God) came up with the idea for the world & wanted the earth and the universe to “happen”. So I wondered if I was weird since I seem to support a little of each side. Sorry if this is just a reiteration of what I said before, but I wasnt sure if I was being misunderstood or not.
And just a side note, the Pope apparently hates rock music as well. So the Pope & I were on different sides from day 1
lennonluvr, no you are not weird for thinking of it that way. I understand completely, and I agree that evolution makes sense, yet creation must have been behind it. Yes, adaptations and changes do happen, because along with changes of the world, creatures change as well. They eventually lose what they no longer need and gain something else that they do need. Still, the creatures don’t just make their changes happen for them. I believe that God helped them adapt, and gave them their changes to help them survive.
Still seems a very civil discussion so far. Does go a little fast at times but not that much so.
