Even on the TWW chatterbox chembob, Ashes and Nerdchick are getting all smart on me, fuck. All summed up nice and neat, just interested in seeing what everyone else has to say.

Quote :

"chembob (11:08) : prof owned a noob today cddweller (11:08) : hah, how? chembob (11:09) : kid was making a bullshit argument about why to not teach creationism alongside evolution cddweller (11:09) : Oh God. cddweller (11:10) : I could have pwnted him myself, that's just dumb. Nerdchick (11:10) : I think they shouldn't teach creationism along with evolution chembob (11:11) : why? cddweller (11:11) : YOU'RE IN FOR IT Nerdchick (11:11) : it's not science, so it doesn't belong in a science class Nerdchick (11:11) : period cddweller (11:11) : Well I'm not getting into this in chatterbox. chembob (11:11) : wouldn't it make a great example of how to not theorize? chembob (11:12) : wouldn't you agree, class? cddweller (11:12) : But to sum up, Britta, if you teach one POV, the other one is on its way. Ignore it if you want, it's there. Nerdchick (11:12) : a discussion of religious beliefs doesn't belong in a biology classroom, and if you think it does then I just don't know what to say cddweller (11:12) : If you don't address it, ppl get mislead (one of either POVs) Nerdchick (11:12) : I'm fine if it's taught as part of world religions or something, because then it has relevance to the subject being taught cddweller (11:13) : It's like politics in the History class, everyone doesn't mind it but doesn't react either. chembob (11:13) : it doesnt neccesarily neccesitate a religous view, britta Ashes (11:13) : if they teach christian creationalism they have to teach every religions creation theory Ashes (11:14) : religion = beliefs that cant be proven Ashes (11:15) : science = fact chembob (11:15) : uh Nerdchick (11:15) : the whole point of science is to explain things without God, so it doesn't matter if the creationism isn't religion specific, it's still religious and shouldn't be paired with you know, real stuff chembob (11:15) : what you do with that is what makes it the religon chembob (11:16) : well, as a chemist and a Christian, I have no contradictions with my science! Ashes (11:16) : how do you explain prehistoric fossils that arent accounted for in the bible Ashes (11:17) : how do you explain that it took MILLIONS of years for earth to form based on SCIENCE FACT but the bible says it took 7 days Nerdchick (11:17) : a philosophical discussion of "what is science really" is beside the point, what matters is that everybody knows creationism is religious, and schools aren't supposed to endorse one religion cddweller (11:17) : I could answer that but it would take like four hours. cddweller (11:18) : Is creationism just one religion? Ashes (11:18) : i have my own thoughts on the topic but i was really just asking bob chembob (11:18) : britta, a philosophical discussion is needed. how can we really investigate the world without one? chembob (11:19) : (personally, Ashley, the jury is still out for me with cosmology and biology) Ashes (11:19) : creationism as defined by american standards is just the christian bit. however there are TONS of theories on creationism based on religion Nerdchick (11:19) : ahhh!!! we're not investigating the world, we're investigating whether or not high school biology teachers should read the Bible in class chembob (11:19) : they don't chembob (11:19) : they don't chembob (11:19) : maybe in bumfuck, nc Nerdchick (11:20) : not to mention that the Catholic Church endorses the theory of evolution and the big bang, while other denominations don't Ashes (11:20) : we basically have 3 opinions here chembob (11:20) : that's Rome Ashes (11:20) : nerdchick thinks creationism /= science so it shouldnt be taught Nerdchick (11:21) : yeah so if you teach young earth creationism then you're promoting one religion over another! Ashes (11:21) : me and cddweller think that if they teach one creationism as an alternative they have to teach them all chembob (11:21) : uh Nerdchick (11:21) : exactly, with religion in school it's either all or none. and since you can't reasonably do all, you have to go with none chembob (11:21) : i didnt say that cddweller (11:21) : Actually I agree with Bob, only that they should also say that this is this, that is that, some think they don't meet, some do Ashes (11:22) : did i miss something chembob (11:22) : all I said was "well, as a chemist and a Christian, I have no contradictions with my science! " cddweller (11:22) : Well it's just what I think Ashes (11:22) : the whole reason we started discussing was because you said that they should teach creationism alongside evolution! cddweller (11:23) : Teach whatever you want, but tell 'em when it's not direct stomping ground so they realize they have a choice. chembob (11:23) : no cddweller (11:23) : (in choosing what to believe) chembob (11:23) : i said some kid was trying to come up with a reason not to Nerdchick (11:25) : I mean everything's a theory, you might as well present "intelligent falling" as an alternative to gravity cddweller (11:24) : I guess we were all just taking it a step further and playing the devil's advocate, lol. Nerdchick (11:25) : I mean everything's a theory, you might as well present "intelligent falling" as an alternative to gravity cddweller (11:26) : Part of the fun of philosophy class from what I remember was arguing over everything. chembob (11:27) : um chembob (11:27) : well, gravity is a LAW Ashes (11:27) : knock kock Ashes(11:27) : its jesus, lol chembob (11:28) : how it all came to be is still a theory Ashes (11:28) : if gravity is a law how the hell did jesus walk on water gravity shouldve made him fall through the water mmk cddweller (11:29) : Well Jesus is God and God made gravity, methinks. Ashes (11:29) : but god isnt proven cddweller (11:29) : But we are. Ashes (11:30) : bascially we know gravity exists but we can't prove WHY it does so it's a theoyr cddweller (11:30) : And nobody can tell me how it all got started. Ashes (11:30) : for us to exist doesnt prove the existance of god cddweller (11:30) : So it all goes back to that one fucking Q. cddweller (11:30) : The Big Bang had to be set off by something. chembob (11:30) : no, it's a law because it can't not be proven to be false Ashes (11:31) : chaos could explain the big bang Ashes (11:31) : you guys want to go into an aim chatroom or something this chatterbox stuff is getting annoying cddweller (11:31) : If chaos caused something, what caused chaos? chembob (11:32) : sure Ashes (11:32) : well the same thing goes for gravity really, and anything when it comes down to it. You're making another point here.... God and relgiion is just what people use to explain that which cannot be explained Nerdchick (11:34) : yo I missed this, gravity is indeed a theory chembob (11:34) : k Nerdchick (11:35) : F=ma or whatever is a law, but the idea of gravity and how it works is a theory"

9/13/2006 11:39:47 PM

and teach magic alongside physics

LOCK

9/13/2006 11:41:24 PM

Creationism isn't science.

Additionally, it isn't true.

Lock.

9/13/2006 11:45:31 PM

I agree with what he^ said, and I agree with what he^^ said, and you know how that makes me crazy.

9/13/2006 11:48:16 PM

plz to also teach astrology in my astronomy class

9/14/2006 12:47:33 AM

They almost got there.

What really needs to happen is this. The education lobby ought to threaten politicians who want to include creationism alongside evolution with a compromise. If they require a chapter or 12 on "Philosophy of Science & Religion" to be part of the curriculum written by qualified researchers in the field, that'd be acceptable.

9/14/2006 1:08:34 AM

the full moon is threatening the virgo of uranus, therfore cepheid variables must be discounted for their redshift during bear markets

wait, that part wasn't mentioned in the syllabus

9/14/2006 1:12:46 AM

they should require teaching scientology in sunday school

9/14/2006 1:17:13 AM

a philisophy class is the closest creationism should come to a science classroom

9/14/2006 1:19:49 AM

you don't have to believe everything you learn

9/14/2006 1:21:17 AM

Rain is God's tears.

9/14/2006 1:22:52 AM

But who's version of religious creation do you teach alongside science's explantation for the beginning? I don't think that it is particularly fair to just default to "God" and his seven days just because it's the religious right that are having the problem.

9/14/2006 3:53:11 AM

Teach it in public schools under the course title "Traditional Western Bullshit" and I'm down. It doesn't belong in a fucking science class room end of fucking discussion QED lol

9/14/2006 8:45:38 AM

Would you rather us teach the UN Earth Charter in schools? That's what they are pushing for.

9/14/2006 8:56:20 AM

Quote :

"a philisophy class is the closest creationism should come to a science classroom "

I don't know, it might should be allowed in something like "religious history" or "Old Testament"

But that's just me, one of those Jesus-nazis

9/14/2006 9:05:19 AM

Quote :

"Teach it in public schools under the course title "Traditional Western Bullshit" and I'm down. It doesn't belong in a fucking science class room end of fucking discussion QED lol"

to be honest it's not just western bullshit


it's worldwide bullshit


just look at the schools in the middle east...the only thing they teach is durka durka allah jihad shit

9/14/2006 9:09:32 AM

Quote :

" science = fact"

That's a stretch, although I agree with your greater point.

Quote :

"how do you explain prehistoric fossils that arent accounted for in the bible"

well, the Bible doesn't have to say anything about fossil records. It's not a biology textbook. By not mentioning it, it doesn't mean that it's discrediting it.

Quote :

"not to mention that the Catholic Church endorses the theory of evolution and the big bang, while other denominations don't"

Did they actually endorse it, or did they just say that it's not contrary to Catholic beliefs?

Quote :

" I mean everything's a theory, you might as well present "intelligent falling" as an alternative to gravity"

I don't think that evolution is nearly as well established of a theory as gravity, but yes...people who say "Evolution's just a THEORY and it SHOULDN'T BE TAUGHT!" are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

9/14/2006 9:12:08 AM

Quote :

"to be honest it's not just western bullshit it's worldwide bullshit"

Sorry I tend to lump Abrahamic tradition in with the West -- it's not ... remarkably accurate. I'd take religions of the East over the religions of the West any day, though.

Quote :

"Would you rather us teach the UN Earth Charter in schools?"

Oh my god you mean we're either creationists or UN supporters pushing for a worldwide dystopian communist state!?

9/14/2006 9:37:11 AM

never mind


[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM. Reason : oh, east as in Buddha]

9/14/2006 10:30:50 AM

The sad thing about this is that there are legitimate scientific criticisms of macro-evolution theory, as well as a quiet but significant sized faction of agnostic and atheistic biologists and physiologists that disagrees with it, but because of the aggressive attacks by creationists, the scientific community have developed a knee-jerk reaction to quickly "ex-communicate" any scientist that dares challenge "fact." That, and they are also afraid of being associated and picked up by the creationists, further damaging their careers.

9/14/2006 10:45:10 AM

they don't preach evolution in church and they shouldn't teach creationism in a science class. PERIOD!

9/14/2006 10:47:05 AM

They preach evolution is some churches, so I guess it's okay to teach creationism in some science classes. QUESTION MARK!

9/14/2006 11:33:59 AM

we absofuckinglutly know what and how everything happened so we definately should only teach that in science class.

good thing we arent being stupid and ignorant like those people hundreds of years ago who thought they had everything figured out!

nosirreee! we've got it nailed!

9/14/2006 11:34:19 AM

It makes a lot more sense to teach evolution than creationism at this point (IMO). One is based on actual observation of REAL things. The other is not in any way. It is based off of books written before science and most general knowledge we have today. Barely anyone could read and nobody had any education when this shit was written, so I'm sure it was easy as shit to convince people of just about anything.

When you get down to it, most of this creationism shit is probably just made up.

To me "Macro-evolution" is likely the product of "micro-evolution" over a very long time scale. We know that "micro-evolution" exists, so I don't see how it's so hard to imagine that over millions of years "micro-evolution" could lead to differing "species."

Shit didn't just immediately branch into a new species or anything, it likely happened over an incredibly long time period.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 12:22 PM. Reason : That was all over the place ]

9/14/2006 12:19:10 PM

Quote :

"I don't know, it might should be allowed in something like "religious history" or "Old Testament" But that's just me, one of those Jesus-nazis"

well a lot of public schools dont have any kind of religious history. the closest they usually have is world history which sometimes already does cover some parts of the old testament. more schools have philosophy, thats the only reason i made that distinction.

9/14/2006 12:21:49 PM

You should allow brief mention of intelligent design in science classes, not because it has any validity, but because every time you take a hardline "No no NO! Nothing but evolution!" stance, you are ensuring that the Jesus people will keep freaking out, keep trying to take over school boards, and keep trying to make outright anti-evolution changes to the curriculum.

Sometimes you have to do something that's a little stupid to prevent something that's a lot of stupid.

9/14/2006 12:23:53 PM

^ I dont think fundamentalists would be satisfied with just that. When I was taught evolution, my biology textbook had a list of things that creationists would say, and their responses. My teach openly said that she doesnt see a conflict between creationism and evolution, when she taught it.

I would think just about everyone who teaches evolution always mentions the other popular views. Such has been my experience.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason : 4]

9/14/2006 12:28:56 PM

you see, numbers not only quanitify but they also hold PREDICTIVE POWER

9/14/2006 12:30:54 PM

At most ID should get a couple sentence description in biology to the effect:
"Some people disagree with evolution and think life was intelligently designed. The overwhelming majority of practicing scientists disagree with this view."
That's it. Most HS teachers probably don't have the competence to lead an accurate discussion. Or worse, they could actively push an ID perspective. Afterall, it seems when people start letting religion into classroom too many people use that opportunity to proselytize:
http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/texascourses/

9/14/2006 12:32:45 PM

religious people believe that scientists are trying to push a belief system

scientists believe were just trying to figure out and show how the ENGINE WORKS

we're not trying to hurt your feelings, we're not trying to corrupt your children

we're trying to figure it out and get it RIGHT

9/14/2006 12:36:12 PM

And it's exactly that kind of talk that riles people up, because the obvious implication is that they have it WRONG

Learn not to kick the fucking beehive, people.

Quote :

"When I was taught evolution, my biology textbook had a list of things that creationists would say, and their responses. My teach openly said that she doesnt see a conflict between creationism and evolution, when she taught it."

Where was this, in N.C.? Ever notice that we don't seem to have a huge debate over evolution in this state? It's for precisely that reason.

Then you've got places like Kansas (with its long tradition of dividing into two bitterly opposed camps with no middle ground). That's where they should just say, "Fine, we'll take ten minutes and talk about ID," and I bet a lot of people would chill out.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ]

9/14/2006 12:37:42 PM

no, they don't have it WRONG

they're not even fucking TRYING

that's whats most upsetting

9/14/2006 12:38:13 PM

Even that's bound to offend them, but it doesn't matter what you're saying, it matters what they're hearing (and not without reason, given your poor choice of language).

If you are trying to get it RIGHT, then it follows that nobody has it RIGHT yet, which means they are WRONG. This is what they will hear. If you don't want to have problems with fundamentalist Christians, stop using condescending/inflammatory language. That's the first step.

9/14/2006 12:41:05 PM

do I look like i'm in front of a commitee?

do I look like i'm talking to a senator?

here's what I'm going to say to you... quit being a fucking idiot

you come off as a smart guy, if you believe in this garbage, i feel sorry for you

i have nothing against faith, but reasonable faith

i have nothing to tell you about what a dude did or did not do 2000 years ago

but the earth is not 6000 years old

and if you really think that, well...

9/14/2006 12:46:17 PM

Quote :

"Did they actually endorse it, or did they just say that it's not contrary to Catholic beliefs?"

The Church's official position is pretty vague. It mostly says that human physiology could have come from other life forms, but that the human soul was specially created by God.

However, John Paul II came out in favor of evolution in several papal statements. And Benedict, before he was Pope, wrote that the Church recognizes the Earth as old and that evolution is supported by scientific evidence.

Here's what John Paul said

Quote :

"some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

9/14/2006 1:01:29 PM

Quote :

"At most ID should get a couple sentence description in biology to the effect: "Some people disagree with evolution and think life was intelligently designed. The overwhelming majority of practicing scientists disagree with this view.""

Are you kidding me? The overwhelming majority of practicing scientists believe life was designed by God. God is intelligent. Youre mixing up creationism with ID.

Quote :

"Some people disagree with evolution and think life was intelligently designed."

Evolution doesnt 'disagree' with a designed life or universe. Only you and idiots like you believe this. The thoery states the mechanism of speciation, nothing else. THe laws that govern speciation, ie, natural selection, is just like any other law. It can be said to be design and driven by God, or it can be said to be natural in an atheistic way -- thats a philosophical matter.

and

Quote :

"Where was this, in N.C.?"

no, upstate NY.


[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:09 PM. Reason : g]

9/14/2006 1:05:27 PM

In the end, I fail to see why this is such a big deal, but then again I see no conflict between the concepts of creationism/intelligent design and evolution. Computers are itelligently designed (or not) but one can easily show an "evolution" in computer technology, there's nothing in the idea of creationism or id that excludes something evolving from something else. The real problem is fundamentalists who don't know how to alter their world view from "poof there was a cat" to "and the cat was molded from the smaller mamal". Likewise it's the scientists who insist that a higher being or force could not have acted or guided such changes. Once again proving humanity has no clue how to make viewpoints peacefuly coexist.

^ Bingo (PS, someone please check the weather reports for hell)

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:10 PM. Reason : dsf]

9/14/2006 1:09:29 PM

Josh8315 said:

Quote :

"Are you kidding me? The overwhelming majority of practicing scientists believe life was designed by God. God is intelligent. Youre mixing up creationism with ID."

I'm ashamed that none of you have called this idiot out on this.

CITATION PLZ

9/14/2006 1:23:04 PM

Are you fucking kidding me? Any decent scientist knows how fined-tuned our univsere is. If youre not going to beleive that the universe was designed, youre probably an athiest. And I promise you, most scientists are not athiests.

9/14/2006 1:25:24 PM

i'll give you a reference

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf

that's from Nature

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among “greater” scientists

Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Figures are percentages.

these are fellows of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

it's basically the next best thing to having a Nobel Prize

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2006 1:27:09 PM

Quote :

" About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. "

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html


thats study was for^

Quote :

"Belief in personal God"

thats not about theism/athiesm.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:31 PM. Reason : jhfh]

9/14/2006 1:28:32 PM

don't be a dick, dude

my citation is nice and to the point

you want a survey of what scientists believe, scientists who matter

there you go

9/14/2006 1:32:33 PM

Anyone with a brain can see that ID is Creationism in disguise. You need to take that superstitious bullshit back to the Dark Ages.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ///]

9/14/2006 1:34:07 PM

take that shit even farther back

back to Londinium

9/14/2006 1:34:51 PM

Quote :

"Anyone with a brain can see that ID is creationism in disguise. "

Why would I argue anything different? Thats a fact.

But if youre going to say that you believe in a creator God, you have to admit that God designed the universe. And if God designed the universe, God must have designed life. How life came to be was through natural selection no doubt.

Quote :

"you want a survey of what scientists believe,"

I said scientists were mostly theists, your survey had nothing to do with that.

[Edited on September 14, 2006 at 1:37 PM. Reason : 4234]

9/14/2006 1:36:19 PM

A) it's not my survey

B) quit dodging

9/14/2006 1:38:01 PM

quit dodging WHAT?`

9/14/2006 1:38:20 PM

ahahahhahah

I'M DONE

9/14/2006 1:38:41 PM

no kiddin.

9/14/2006 1:39:12 PM

So, the theory of ID is that God was just powerful enough to create the universe, set it into motion, and create a single cell life form through which all life as we know it today evolved but at the same time God was not quite powerful enough to create man directly from the dust.

(troll post BTW)

9/14/2006 1:43:49 PM