Creationist Appointed As Maine Education Commissioner

#26
#26
BigOrangeTrain said:
We certainly dont need school kids thinkng for themselves. No siree. There are no competing ideas about how everything came to be. School kids have to be taught one way and one way only, by what the mighty textbooks say. So instead of teaching the possible ways in which everything has came to be and letting kids use their intelligence for themselves, they should just be taught cherry picked material. Thats grand.
Click to expand...

Teach your kids at home about your personal beliefs regarding the world.

Let the educators educate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#29
#29
volfanngatorland said:
I don't think they should give preference, either. Comparing and contrasting the differences isn't as big of an issue as some of you are making it.

I would have zero issue with them presenting Islam in the same fashion. I took a religion class where they touched on all the major religions around the world. It was one of the most enlightening classes I took.
Click to expand...

Keep creationist theories in the religious classroom.

Keep the science in the science classroom.

Pretty simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#32
#32
Grand Vol said:
So you're saying a leap of faith is required to believe random chemicals came together and life suddenly came into existence?

Sounds kinda like what you're saying.
Click to expand...

There is a lack of total certainty in most areas of science. There is no way around it, but science does require some element of faith....but it also demands a strong element of evidence and/or reason. That's the difference.

We can say "it's possible the world came about this way based on the things I observe". We can't say "it's possible the world came about this way because that's what I believe".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#33
#33
Grand Vol said:
Yet those same atheists choose to believe random chemicals came together and life suddenly sprang forth in a process they can't entirely explain.

No?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Because they don't believe the religious origin doesn't mean they defacto believe the scientific randomness alternative.

Most are content with saying "we don't really know without further evidence".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#34
#34
Grand Vol said:
Sure, it's called "life."



Yep, along with bio-electrical impulses and whatnot.

Which also still can't be explained of how it started.



Still is an unproven theory. You knock intelligent design as being ludicrous and scoff at the idea of a higher power being involved in creation. But have no problems thinking the process of life just "happened" and toss your stamp of approval on the theory.

You're still assuming the theory of how life started is correct. And one assumption or a thousand makes no difference. It's still an assumption.
Click to expand...

I don't ever recall there being a division between living and non living chemicals in organic chemistry.

Regarding the explanation of electrical impulses and how they got started - I'm not the one who's asserting a supernatural position.

If you've got evidence for a supernatural magician that doesn't start and stop with a bronze age book written by men, I'm all ears.

If you're arguing that my position is that of a belief, I have no qualms with that and don't refute it. Getting back to the point - my belief doesn't rely on a omnipotent sky god, just chemicals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
volinbham said:
Agree though perhaps a brief acknowledgement that the scientific explanation doesn't invalidate religious beliefs could be made.

That said, I have no problem with a creationist (or Muslim or Jew or...) being in charge of anything education related. If they change curriculum to push their religious beliefs then it becomes problematic.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in theory. In practice however it's a slippery slope. In a Biology course is it necessary to say biological death doesn't invalidate religious beliefs of resurrection? What about geological evidence the grand canyon is millions of years old doesn't invalidate the religious belief the earth is 10,000 years old? If one is going to put it in front of one scientific proposal, wouldn't it be necessary across the board?

Better to leave it out altogether and let home and church discussion hash out the details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
n_huffhines said:
There is a lack of total certainty in most areas of science. There is no way around it, but science does require some element of faith....but it also demands a strong element of evidence and/or reason. That's the difference.

We can say "it's possible the world came about this way based on the things I observe". We can't say "it's possible the world came about this way because that's what I believe".
Click to expand...

No one has ever observed life developing from inanimate material. It's never been duplicated/replicated, proven or debunked.

We should be teaching our kids that we don't know how life started.
 
#39
#39
hog88 said:
No one has ever observed life developing from inanimate material. It's never been duplicated/replicated, proven or debunked.

We should be teaching our kids that we don't know how life started.
Click to expand...


We are. Nowhere is it said or taught that any scientific theory is complete truth. I'm sorry, but not giving non-scientific alternatives does not equate to science being taught as truth. In a SCIENCE course SCIENTIFIC proposals are given, nothing else.

Alternative religious theories can be taught in theology classed, home, or church.

This isn't hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#40
#40
hog88 said:
No one has ever observed life developing from inanimate material. It's never been duplicated/replicated, proven or debunked.

We should be teaching our kids that we don't know how life started.
Click to expand...

The earth is 4,530,000,000 years old, roughly. The microscope was invented 426 years ago.

Lots of things haven't been observed, yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#41
#41
Septic said:
I don't ever recall there being a division between living and non living chemicals in organic chemistry.
Click to expand...

How those chemicals interact with each other is at the heart of the matter. Those interactions are called life.

Septic said:
Regarding the explanation of electrical impulses and how they got started - I'm not the one who's asserting a supernatural position.
Click to expand...

Funny, I'm not asserting a supernatural position either. But I am showing that your belief in other theories are just as unproven as believing in intelligent design. You can't explain how those electrical impulses got started, nor can I. I can't explain how a higher power started life, just like you.

The difference being is I don't act like a complete ass when dealing with anyone religious, but at the same time have beliefs that are unproven and sound just as absurd as intelligent design.

Septic said:
If you've got evidence for a supernatural magician that doesn't start and stop with a bronze age book written by men, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

I don't.

Now do you have proof of how life started?

Septic said:
If you're arguing that my position is that of a belief, I have no qualms with that and don't refute it. Getting back to the point - my belief doesn't rely on a omnipotent sky god, just chemicals.
Click to expand...

Your belief is just as unproven as any religious aspect or belief. Neither can be proven. Yet you choose to ridicule those with spiritual beliefs because...?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#42
#42
Septic said:
The earth is 4,530,000,000 years old, roughly. The microscope was invented 426 years ago.

Lots of things haven't been observed, yet.
Click to expand...

True. But in many classrooms the start of life from a primordial ooze is being taught as fact.
 
#44
#44
Grand Vol said:
Sure, it's called "life."



Yep, along with bio-electrical impulses and whatnot.

Which also still can't be explained of how it started.



Still is an unproven theory. You knock intelligent design as being ludicrous and scoff at the idea of a higher power being involved in creation. But have no problems thinking the process of life just "happened" and toss your stamp of approval on the theory.

You're still assuming the theory of how life started is correct. And one assumption or a thousand makes no difference. It's still an assumption.
Click to expand...

This is a false equivalence. One theory is not equal to another just because, in your mind, they are both equally baseless assumptions. This is a major misunderstanding that many religious folk have, generally because they are not nearly as educated in the sciences as, well, you know.. actual scientists. Additionally, there are no science textbooks that offer a definitive answer on how life was formed on earth- they offer theories that we have formulated based on what we know and what we have observed about life. Most textbooks do not get into every detail of every theory. The most accepted ones in the community generally get the spotlight. If creationism was such a solid theory that it deserved to be in a science textbook, it would be.

Obviously, the vast majority of scientists believe creationism/intelligent design(creationism in hiding) is not a worthy subject which fits the criteria for what we consider a scientific theory deserving of being taught in a science class. This seems to work for you and most people holding the same beliefs until it appears to contradict your religious beliefs. This continuous and concerted effort to smuggle philosophy/theology in science class is absurd, and almost always initiated by entirely unqualified(non scientists) education administrators who, to put it bluntly, are simply not equipped to tell anyone what is real science or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#45
#45
hog88 said:
No one has ever observed life developing from inanimate material. It's never been duplicated/replicated, proven or debunked.

We should be teaching our kids that we don't know how life started.
Click to expand...

That is what we teach them. Theories are presented, but never offered as fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
Grand Vol said:
How those chemicals interact with each other is at the heart of the matter. Those interactions are called life.



Funny, I'm not asserting a supernatural position either. But I am showing that your belief in other theories are just as unproven as believing in intelligent design. You can't explain how those electrical impulses got started, nor can I. I can't explain how a higher power started life, just like you.

The difference being is I don't act like a complete ass when dealing with anyone religious, but at the same time have beliefs that are unproven and sound just as absurd as intelligent design.



I don't.

Now do you have proof of how life started?



Your belief is just as unproven as any religious aspect or belief. Neither can be proven. Yet you choose to ridicule those with spiritual beliefs because...?
Click to expand...

....because religion flies planes into buildings, discriminates based on an arbitrary morality, teaches there is no real consequences for actions and is used as a platform to control, among other reasons. That's why I ridicule it.

To the former part of your post, I've conceded that my position is a belief due to the inability to prove; are you just grumpy with the way I express my position? Sheez, toughen up a bit Sally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top