you go to school for science, math, languages, and history...
you go to church/mosque/temple for religion

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Bravo for what? Attempting to give equal time to science and religion in a science classroom? I don't see people demanding evolution to be taught in sunday school. That is simply not correct. Religion does require a belief in either a deity or at least in some sort of spiritualism, but the key word here is belief. Now, while you could say that strict atheism and religion do share the fact that they both believe in something, secularism is basically the same as agnosticism and therefore does not believe in anything. Hence it can not be regarded as a religious or even a belief system, and therefore it has more right to be taught in schools not because it teaches people what is right or wrong, but because it teaches people only about things which are observable and of which we are pertty much certain of. Every other religion and belief system including atheism includes in itself things that are not observable and that only a result of one's personal believs and ideals.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

secular humanism is a system of beliefs, it is a principle, and it has a cause. religion can involve the belief in a deity or spiritualism, but the keyword is can. u are right in that secular humanism is non-theistic "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." the word "god" also can be something other than the christian god, allah, or a deity. god can be your favorite singer, your job, your car, money, etc. whatever you hold of supreme value is your god. like i said, it can be jesus, allah, or money, your girlfriend, your job, your car, etc.

science is great in many aspects. but in the question of the beginning of everything, science jumps the bounds into the spiritual, because the question of "What is the first beginning?", and "What set all physical laws in place?", and "Why does everything work together like a machine, intelligently created by a human, likewise, the human body, which like a machine, has all the different parts working together, just like a car, also created with intelligent design.

and with that, evolution is on the same page as creation. both can only observe what they have on the table now. no video camera's in the beginning of existance. there are creation scientist out there who are scientifically, using the scientific method finding evidence for creationism. but, evolutionists have already made up their mind that is all just religious smack, and u dont even listen to the creationist arguement.

quote:

Again, secular humanism is not a religon, but really, if you teach every religion in the world, you'd finish your schooling at the age of 50. But what you are demanding here is grossly unfair. You want public secular schools to teach your religion, yet you do not want your specific church to teach secular values. Getting yourself catholic education is not forbidden in the US, and if you want to learn about creationism (which is dismissed even by the pope himself), you can go to your local church. But you shouldn't force your religious values upon anybody, because scientists are not forcing your church to teach evolution.

secular humanism is a religion because it falls under "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" this definition. i wasnt saying teach every religion. im calling your case hypocracy because if secular humanism is taught in schools, and u say "if we teach one religion, we must teach them all." this is your own words. secular humanism is a religion, and so hey, why arent u teaching the rest? because u have come to the conclusion that all other worldviews are wrong, and that secular humanism is the only true one. christianity is doing the same, which is why there is such a big fight going on over this. each side believes itself to be absolutely right.

i have no catholic education. i have a mostly secular one, with the 1 year of protestant education and another year of protestant schooling. who knows what ill study in college?

the pope means nothing to me. i believe the catholic church is a false religion in that they put traditions and rules in front of what the bible really says. purgatory is not in the bible, they have added extra books to the bible, u earn salvation by good works, etc. this why there are protestants. the bible calls the catholic church the Great Prostitute

"Revelation 19
Hallelujah!
1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” 3And again they shouted: “Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever.” "

what do u mean scientists are not trying to force their values on us?? look at the definition of Secular Humanism.

Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion.

secular science is antagonistic against christianity especially. look at the battle going on over abortion, the media, schools, people's minds, over science. secular's, humanists, atheists alike are all trying to get Christianity out of everything, and whether u realize it or not, instituting their own system of beliefs upon all whether they agree with it or not.

and ill say, it will come to a day where christians will be killed en masse, just like the jews of the haulocaust, by the millions and then seculars will have their day.

quote:

Well, ultimately it must come to this because the only reason why evolution is being taught in schools instead of creationism is that it has much more evidence on its side.

creationism has a mountain of evidence behind it. it's just that u, evolutionists, atheists, and seculars alike have already made up their mind to not even look at the evidence. they just put it off immediatly as myth. they have already come to their conclusion, and nothing will change their mind. look at the evidence, then come to your conclusion. genesis isnt the only thing creationism has to support it. there is a mountain of extra-biblical evidence, which most of u fail to see.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: creationism has a mountain of evidence behind it. it's just that u, evolutionists, atheists, and seculars alike have already made up their mind to not even look at the evidence. they just put it off immediatly as myth. they have already come to their conclusion, and nothing will change their mind. look at the evidence, then come to your conclusion. genesis isnt the only thing creationism has to support it. there is a mountain of extra-biblical evidence, which most of u fail to see.

Ummm I believe that MisterOpus, myself, Drug_Tito and a few others examined your evidence and posted our responses to which you never fully rebutted or addressed. Anyway ...

quote:

Intelligence for Dummies While half-watching the Rice coronation today, I stumbled upon this: The Cobb County school board is appealing to keep their stickers. Those stickers are for science textbooks, and they read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." You might have missed this, concluding that the matter of evolution was settled in 1960, when Spencer Tracey stalked the courtroom and laid the smackdown on the forces of anti-science. Though I'd applaud your knowledge of history, the battle didn't end with Tracey's brilliant summation. In those days, God only had a sword. Now He's got pincers. Is God a lobster? No, probably not. Hard to say, really. But in the new Darwin debate, He's got pincers. One arm is the old standby you've heard of, The Bible. You know, the big book He wrote that tells about Charlton Heston growling at people and other stories. That book. But the other arm of the pincers is the new Science of "Intelligent Design." The discipline lives up to its name - it's intelligently designed. But because the scientific community tends to unfairly dismiss it as "pseudo-science" and "fraudulent" and "bullshit," I thought I'd provide you all with a Q&A entitled The Complete Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design." Q: What's Intelligent Design? A: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Q:I'm sorry, I was distracted by a sparkly object. What was that? A: It's the science that concludes that life is so very, very complicated that by necessity it must have been created by an intelligence. Q: I hear that! Why just the other day I tried to get on the bus but my pass was clipped to my pants so I had to jump up and down to try to reach the little machine - A: No, no, I mean "complicated" as in "complex." DNA, cellular biology, etc. It's all so complex that there HAD to be a designer. Q: Oh. Like God? A: Not necessarily. Just an "intelligence." A lot of ID people are very careful to point out that they are scientists, and positing an "intelligence" that created life doesn't mean "God." Could be anything. Q: Like a giant lobster. A: Sure. Like a giant lobster. Q: Or space aliens? Or a totally, like, super-smart cherry pie? A: ... I suppose. Q: So these ID guys don't believe in God. A: Oh no, they do. Q: All of them? A: Pretty much. So what? Doesn't mean they can't be scientists. Q: Oh. So there's all these scientific papers they write, right? A: Yes. Q: What do they say? A: Well, they're diverse and technical, but they all come to the conclusion that life was created by an intelligence. Q: Why? A: Because it looks like it. Q: That's it? A: Pretty much. It's all about how the design of life resembles the designs of people. And a lot of stuff about how it's a better explanation than evolution. Q: Okay, I am by definition a complete idiot, right? A: Yes. Q: But still... how does such a pursuit constitute a "science?" It seems to me that ID offers no direct evidence nor does it present a path for continued inquiry. It seems that the discipline exists only to shore up a single unprovable theory rather than to refine or further it. Is that actually science, or is that a meticulous manipulation of data for nonscientific ends? A: Um... Q: Furthermore, is this not an idea that exists to negate, forcing evolutionary theorists to prove that each and every natural phenomenon was NOT created by an intelligence? A: Well... Q: Whereas a real science would not just employ scientific methods to shore up a foregone conclusion, but rather use scientific methods to determine precisely how something operates, right? A: It's science, all right? It's science. Q: So what is ID doing to research the identity and characteristics of this "intelligence" that it posits? A: Well, nothing that I've found yet... Q: Because if they really wanted to research stuff, they'd be saying things like, "Well, could a giant lobster make a flower?" and, "Is there anything about the design of DNA that looks like something a space crustacean would come up with?" A: I really think you need to get off this whole lobster thing. Q: But these ID guys aren't looking into just who this intelligence is, are they? A: No. Q: Because they think it's God, right? A: They don't say that. Q: Because if they thought they saw evidence of giant superintelligent eyestalks peering down on them from under a celestial carapace, they'd be seriously bummed, wouldn't they? A: I think this Q&A is over now. Q: Yeah, but, the goal of science is to- A: Hey, look at these keys. Q: Oooooh - sparkly! A: ... http://www.felbers.net/mt/archives/000986.html

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith secular humanism is a system of beliefs, it is a principle, and it has a cause.

I may be a bit off here, but are you somehow equating science to this so-called "secular humanism"? Well science cares nothing about beliefs or values that are given in a religious setting - all it cares about is hypothetico-deductive reasoning that either supports or negates hypothesis, and then further evidence that supports theories. Equating these two is quite erroneous of you.

quote:

religion can involve the belief in a deity or spiritualism, but the keyword is can. u are right in that secular humanism is non-theistic "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." the word "god" also can be something other than the christian god, allah, or a deity. god can be your favorite singer, your job, your car, money, etc. whatever you hold of supreme value is your god. like i said, it can be jesus, allah, or money, your girlfriend, your job, your car, etc.

The problem is, your idea of creationism is conflated by none other than Christian beliefs. You and the rest of the creationist community state nothing about Hindu creationism being taught, or the like. Why is that?

quote:

science is great in many aspects. but in the question of the beginning of everything, science jumps the bounds into the spiritual, because the question of "What is the first beginning?", and "What set all physical laws in place?", and "Why does everything work together like a machine, intelligently created by a human, likewise, the human body, which like a machine, has all the different parts working together, just like a car, also created with intelligent design.

Your problem, shared with IDers, is the fallacious attempt to use an engineered design, i.e. a man-made machine, to biological phenomena. It's quite common, and quite a bad analogy in a myriad of ways.

quote:

and with that, evolution is on the same page as creation.

Incorrect. You are speaking of abiogenesis, not evolution. Why do I get the feeling that we've discussed this before?

quote:

both can only observe what they have on the table now.

There is no observed evidence in any way that supports ID. Furthermore, IDers have yet to identify any known mechanism for their "theory". You wish to be the first?

quote:

no video camera's in the beginning of existance.

I didn't know we needed to actually "be there" in order to come to good sound judgement on what was actually there in the past? If this is a necessity, I think you'll have to tell all those forensic scientists that they're full of shit, and we're gonna have to let out a large number of murderers, thieves, and other felons out of our prisons. Afterall, lots of these folks didn't have any eyewitnesses to their crimes - no one was there to see it happen. Why convict?

quote:

there are creation scientist out there who are scientifically, using the scientific method finding evidence for creationism.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Give me examples.

quote:

but, evolutionists have already made up their mind that is all just religious smack, and u dont even listen to the creationist arguement.

The creationist argument is NOT supported by any physical evidence, so why would any evolutionist or astronomer want to listen to them when this is an absolute necessity in their work?

quote:

secular humanism is a religion because it falls under "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" this definition.

I'm not really familiar with this "secular humanism" term, other than O'Reilly throwing it around from time to time like the little tool that he is. I looked it up and this is what I found:

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism.

And then under secularism:

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

I see nothing under any of these that requires blind faith of any sort. You'll have to explain your definition a bit further here.

quote:

i wasnt saying teach every religion.

But equal time to unverified ideas in the science classroom would demand it, however.

quote:

im calling your case hypocracy because if secular humanism is taught in schools, and u say "if we teach one religion, we must teach them all." this is your own words. secular humanism is a religion, and so hey, why arent u teaching the rest? because u have come to the conclusion that all other worldviews are wrong, and that secular humanism is the only true one. christianity is doing the same, which is why there is such a big fight going on over this. each side believes itself to be absolutely right.

This is a moot point unless you can somehow successfully equate secular humanism with science.

quote:

i have no catholic education. i have a mostly secular one, with the 1 year of protestant education and another year of protestant schooling. who knows what ill study in college?

One would only hope you enter your Biology class with a more open mind.

quote:

the pope means nothing to me. i believe the catholic church is a false religion in that they put traditions and rules in front of what the bible really says. purgatory is not in the bible, they have added extra books to the bible, u earn salvation by good works, etc. this why there are protestants. the bible calls the catholic church the Great Prostitute "Revelation 19 Hallelujah! 1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, 2for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.” 3And again they shouted: “Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever.” "

Umm, while John was likely tripping hard on 'shrooms while writing this lovely Book, most scholars tend to think he was referring to the Roman Empire during this 4th vision, not the Roman Catholic Church.

Regardless of whether or not I agree with your overall sentiment towards the Catholic Church, their scholarship predates any other Christian sect. So they do have a bit more authority on the matter.

quote:

what do u mean scientists are not trying to force their values on us?? look at the definition of Secular Humanism. Main Entry: secular humanism Function: noun : HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion.

There are no "values" in science period. Where the hell did you come up with that one? Science doesn't force anything upon anyone. Jesus, what the hell are you talking about? Science merely attempts to explain observed phenomena in nature, nothing more. If this somehow conflicts with your unsupported, unverified beliefs, that's your problem and it should remain as such.

quote:

secular science is antagonistic against christianity especially. look at the battle going on over abortion, the media, schools, people's minds, over science. secular's, humanists, atheists alike are all trying to get Christianity out of everything, and whether u realize it or not, instituting their own system of beliefs upon all whether they agree with it or not.

Jesus, you really sound borderline paranoid here. Why such vitriol towards observation of natural phenomena? There are no "system of beliefs" in science. Ideas are tested, theories are created that have bodies of evidence to support them, and future predictions are made and further tested. Nothing else.

This "battle" created was done so by the ignorant fundy Christians, NOT by scientists. You guys didn't like the results of observed phenomena, so you wage a battle because it conflicts with your unsupported beliefs.

Excuse me while I try to fight off your idiotic attempts to take us back to the Middle Ages. I must be crazy for wanting to enjoy the pursuits of scientific advancement, regardless of what belief or religion it conflicts with.

Perhaps it's time to challenge your unsupported beliefs, rather than continue to attack science?

quote:

and ill say, it will come to a day where christians will be killed en masse, just like the jews of the haulocaust, by the millions and then seculars will have their day.

Oh the martyrdom.

You've just put the finger right on THE underlying motive of all scientists - to KILL OFF THE CHRISTIANS!

Bring back the lions!

Off with their heads!

Fuck 'em all!

Jesus, who the hell have you been talking to that feeds you this kind of shit? Gimme a fucking break.

quote:

creationism has a mountain of evidence behind it.

Shall we continue with our earlier thread on this topic? You didn't do a very good job demonstrating this "mountain of evidence" before - why would I continue to believe such baseless assertions now?

quote:

it's just that u, evolutionists, atheists, and seculars alike have already made up their mind to not even look at the evidence.

*Sigh*

Okay, I'll say this again - us "evil doers" have THOROUGHLY examined your evidence, and it simply doesn't hold water in any way. I'm sorry if you don't like the results, but it's not my fault that your "evidence" isn't supportable under scientific scrutiny.

You wanna play by the rules of science, bring me something scientific, and let's test it via the hypothetico-deductive method.

Otherwise, it's not science, period.

quote:

they just put it off immediatly as myth.

It is myth - no evidence supports it. Sorry.

quote:

they have already come to their conclusion, and nothing will change their mind. look at the evidence, then come to your conclusion.

I have. They have. Please drive through.

quote:

genesis isnt the only thing creationism has to support it.

Creationism doesn't support Genesis, nor anything else for that matter.

quote:

there is a mountain of extra-biblical evidence, which most of u fail to see.

Are you in repeat mode or something? As mentioned, they've THOROUGLY examined this extra-biblical evidence, and it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. Why are you so uncomfortable with this outcome? Why can't you just except the notion that scientifically, creationism is pure bullshit?

Get over it already. It's getting old.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Jan-21-2005 at 20:40

TranceVanDyk needs to work on taking the plank out of his own eye before he removes the speck from his brother's.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

im going to admit. u know much more than i do on this subject of science, im a B science student. so, its best that i let the PHD's make my case.

Creationist Papers

following this link, youll find a page full of creationist papers written by scientists themselves and many scholars, of which can fight my case much better than i can.
------------------------------------------

im going to respond to your naturalism worldview this way..

Naturalism, logic and reality By: Dr. Ken Ham
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

quote:

I may be a bit off here, but are you somehow equating science to this so-called "secular humanism"? Well science cares nothing about beliefs or values that are given in a religious setting - all it cares about is hypothetico-deductive reasoning that either supports or negates hypothesis, and then further evidence that supports theories. Equating these two is quite erroneous of you.

no, im mistaken. i equate evolution to secular humanism. not science, my mistake.

___________________

This arguement is really over our presuppositions. no matter how much we think we're right, we have already come to our conclusion before-hand and nothing will change that. its like a firewall to a computer. some things u let in, some things u dont. u have come to the conclusion that the christian god does not exist, and so therefore with that basic assumption, creationism cant be true, and all religion is fallicy. on the other hand, i cant see how the christian god cant exist, and so with this basic assumption of mine, evolution cant be true, and naturalism is fallicy.

its the way we look at this world, the lenses we are looking through, and everyone worldview is a different prescription.
----------------------------

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
by Ken Ham

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘My friends say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think.

___________________

The only thing that really pisses me off about creationists is when they try to use science to explain their theories. Relgion has always stood in the way of science and always tried to stop people from thinking for themselves (I'm talking 15-17th century here). And now that people start thinking for themselves and science becomes more accepted and understood, they decide to use science in their own theories.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer The only thing that really pisses me off about creationists is when they try to use science to explain their theories. Relgion has always stood in the way of science and always tried to stop people from thinking for themselves (I'm talking 15-17th century here). And now that people start thinking for themselves and science becomes more accepted and understood, they decide to use science in their own theories.

what, u want them to be bible thumping all day long, just so u can chastize the notion of creationism against your anti-theistic worldview??? excuse me, but the catholic church stood in the way of science (15-17th century), not theism as your stating.

nobody isnt taking away your free will of thought. the doctrine of christianity states, "In God's love, He has given us a choice. We can live in ourselves, or live in God. There are consequences for both. It is like a murderer being put on trial. that murderer deserves to be punished. what kind of judge would just aquit that criminal with that words, 'since im a nice guy, and i love u, ill let u go, have a nice life.' no, people would be angry. a just judge judges. jesus is so essential because he can take away that murderers guilt and put it upon himself. with the words 'ill take on your guilt, just follow me'. "

u have a free will to do whatever u want. u can think for yourself all u want, but i will say, if we were left to ourselves, we would destroy ourselves.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: nobody isnt taking away your free will of thought

If they're taking away from the rest of the science curriculum to teach creationism then I'd say they're forcing this on the kids. I'm not saying that anyone is forcing them to believe it, but considering that in some states they want to outlaw teaching about evolution, I'd say this is pretty hypocritical. It's like they finally found a loophole that allows them to bring religion into public schools.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer If they're taking away from the rest of the science curriculum to teach creationism then I'd say they're forcing this on the kids. I'm not saying that anyone is forcing them to believe it, but considering that in some states they want to outlaw teaching about evolution, I'd say this is pretty hypocritical. It's like they finally found a loophole that allows them to bring religion into public schools.

we're not saying take out evolution. we're actually the one championing free will in that it is the creationist desire to let the student decide for themself what they will accept as the correct theory according to their presuppositions, not be told that a theory as controversial as evolution be taught as 100% fact, and anything else is unscientific.

___________________