oh boy....

THE BATTLE over attempts to introduce a version of creationism into the curriculum of American schools has become focused on a small town in Pennsylvania.
 Biology teachers at a high school in Dover have rejected the instructions of local officials to read a statement in class today questioning the theory of evolution.
 They had been ordered by the town’s elected school board to preface their usual class on evolution with a statement, saying “Darwin’s Theory is a theory ... not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” As an alternative, the statement mentions “intelligent design”, an updated form of creationism which argues that life on earth is too complex to have developed at random.
 The teachers asked to opt out of making the statement and it will be read instead by a school administrator before a biology class early next week.
 The Dover school board’s actions make the town the first in the US to promote “intelligent design” in competition to evolution. It has become the subject of a lawsuit by a group of parents that has pitted the Christian right against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case is due to be heard in the next few months.
 “Intelligent design is more than an attack on evolution. What these folks are proposing is to allow faith and miracles and supernatural creators to be considered as science,” the ACLU’s legal director in Pennsylvania, Witold Walczak, said.
 A supreme court decision in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it would violate the separation of church and state.
 The Dover school board decision is one of a series of signs that the movement is making a comeback. Mr Walczak predicted that it would gather steam as Christian conservatives drew inspiration from President Bush’s re-election.
 A CBS/New York Times poll at the time of the election found 55% of Americans believed God created humans in their present form, 27% believed in evolution guided by God and only 13% believed God was not involved in human evolution. And 65% backed teaching creationism alongside evolution.
 The Dover school board and its supporters argue that “intelligent design” is not covered by the 1987 supreme court decision because it is not inherently religious, but a scientific challenge to Darwinism.
 “Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design,” said Carl Jarboe, a former chemistry professor and school board supporter. “I am alleging there is not one piece of scientific evidence that supports evolution."

They might as well teach Tolkiens version of the creation of the world. Just as relevant.

Here's a summary of the creation theorie according to JRR Tolkien. 

http://www.livejournal.com/users/camwyn/328358.html - http://www.livejournal.com/users/camwyn/328358.html

The problem is that these are not stupid people pushing this.Teachers,Lawyers, Doctors are all involved with "Intelligent Design", Politicians too.This heavyweight patronage gives such nonesense an air of acceptability and plausibility that would be laughed at in any other Western country.These "theories" would never have been promulgated had The Theory Of Evolution not been propounded.There is no precedent in the Bible for this "new theory".It exists purely as an alternative choice for choice's sake.If Darwen had never formulated his theory these people would still be peddling the Adam & Eve version of events.

 Remember Pol Pot and Year Zero or the Taliban? This is what will happen in the USA over the next century unless the people of America start to contribute to the Political & Religious Debate in their country.

They should teach both of them or teach none at all

though I'm just fine learning Evolution

aqualung28 wrote: They should teach both of them or teach none at all

...good call. It isn't right to teach children one without the other. It automatically will legitimize the Theory of Evolution since Creationism isn't taught in public schools. People should be able to hear both ends of the argument and decide which one they prefer.

I think Theory is the key word here. Neither one is based on hard evidence and one could poke holes in either one.

Exactly, it's unfair to ban one and let the other theory, that was the whole point of my long post but Aqualung said it clerly in one phrase.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Exactly, it's unfair to ban one and let the other theory, that was the whole point of my long post but Aqualung said it clerly in one phrase. Iván

sorry Ivan...I have this disability that doesn't let me read far into long posts. It's called impatience....I start to lose conscienceness.

The Darwin theory is not all proven (though IMO very accurate), the theory of intelligent design, however is completely unfounded. No proof other than speculation and man's inability to grasp the complexity of life.

It's to difficult to comprehend, therefor it has to be the act of a god

the Darwin evolution theory requeres no faith, basic understanding of cellular/moleculair biologie is all you need.

BTW. good post Ivan. but your post revolves around the right of religion, which is clear, but other religious interpretations of the origin of life should also be mentioned in biologie class, not just the intelligent design theory for that matter. Theological debate and teachings don't belong in a biologieclass, nor in a scienceclass or topographic-class. these discussions, interpreting the science in a religious context should be held in theological classes. 

tuxon wrote: The Darwin theory is not all proven (though IMO very accurate), the theory of intelligent design, however is completely unfounded. No proof other than speculation and man's inability to grasp the complexity of life. It's to difficult to comprehend, therefor it has to be the act of a god the Darwin evolution theory requeres no faith, basic understanding of cellular/moleculair biologie is all you need.

Yes, but I find it just as much a leap of faith to accept evolution. I mean life evolving from a simple organism to something as miraculous and complex as the human body is a stretch of logic. How incredibly lucky!! I mean one would have a better chance to win the lottery a thousand times over than to accept that a single celled organism developed into something as wonderous and complex as humanity.

and, perhaps it did....with a little nudge from God.

Law of the numbers.

The Universe is infinitly great, with infinite stars, with infinite planets which could contain life.

Add to that the buildingblocks of life (which is for all we know organic-matter), there is proof of organic molecules being the residual trash from emerging or dying stars.

So there's bound to (0.0000000001% of infinitive is infinitive) be an infinitive number of Life-sustainable planets, with all the right ingredients for life to begin.

One of Men's flaws is, we think we are ment to be, or how can it be possible that we exist, for the odds of us existing is 1 in a zillion, but we forget, we are one of the possible products to come out of this chance.

Whatever the merits of the individual theories, public schools are an instituation funded by various sources, and those sources have the option of dictating curriculum or removing their support. In many cases, the funding comes from the taxpayers...and if a majority of the taxpayers in a given region believe that a giant purple aardvark belched out the world, then the schools may be told to teach that. That's democracy...

Intelligent Design has a number of rather obvious flaws, not least of which is the fact that human beings are designed pretty inefficiently- but it must be remembered that Evolution is also a theory, rather than an incontrovertible fact. The very nature of change over milennia makes it very difficult to say anything for certain about development.

I tend to lean towards Evolutionary Theory because it fully accepts the influence of random chance...which is really the only way to account for the numerous evolutionary mis-steps and cul-de-sacs (that would at the very least embarrass the heck out of a designer).

Until a better theory comes along, it seems to me to be about the best we've come up with. I see no reason not to present the alternative as well...the good ol' "Some people believe ______" seemed to work pretty well for most of my teachers.

I have no problem with the first half of the statement - evolution is a theory, and one which is not fully proven by empirical data. The available evidence tends to support it, but my belief in it is based on intuition and faith.

As for the argument for intelligent design - Charles Darwin was himself an ordained clergyman who was able to reconcile a faith in God with evolution. His real problem with his theory was that natural selection could be used to argue against the idea that all men are created equal, something Darwin passionately believed in. Darwin was not a creationist, but would have supported intelligent design.

A surprising number of leading scientists have also been able to reconcile their spiritual beliefs with hard science, among them Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, and many leading theologians have been able to accommodate evolution and the big bang theory with their beliefs.

The point is that it is perfectly possible for science and religion to co exist in any education system. It is impossible, however for creationism to exist alongside science, open mindedness, tolerance or sanity. This kind of blinkered fanaticism is dangerous anywhere, and is positively poisonous in schools.

One scientific fact: Humans have 98% of our genetic material in common with chimpanzees. Not only is that a good explanation as to why 98% of mankind are complete idiots but it's also a very good point in favour of evolution,since there's no way it could be a coincidence. As far as I know,there's still no evidence whatsoever for the theory that life started because some guy in a white beard snapped his fingers. Remind me again: Which century is this? The 12th?!

I apologise for trying to simplify things, but ivan why should any religous viewpoint be expressed in a biology class??

Is science routinely taught in religous studies????

What is the actual harm in teaching both in their right classroom envioronments??

It is perfectly reasonable (if not desirable) that the Creationist theory of life be taught in class, but only in religious education.
As for the so-called holes in  Evolutionary theory can anyone explain to me why the bones of human beings are not found alongside dinosaur bones. For that matter can anyone explain how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs?
Why are dinosaurs never mentioned in the Bible?

Glass-Prison wrote: I don't think the public schools should teach any theory that is not based in fact... it is merely teaching our children to accept faith as a reasonable method of logical deduction.

That's a grey area Glass, what about Philosophy? Religious education has its place if only to teach that there is more than one faith in the world and its link to the social conditioning/engineering of our global society. Remember that many religions founded the first education systems in the early days of civilisation. 

That said, this instance is so out or order it's almost laughable. IMO, fundamentalism should always be resisted, be it religious, political or indeed, scientific.

I apologise for trying to simplify things, but ivan why should any religous viewpoint be expressed in a biology class??

I know evolution is a scientific theory that according to my view is mostly accurate, but that's not the fact, Crationoism is also a theory that is accepted by the majority of USA citizens, so they could mention it, explain if it's posible or not and teach the children why they believe evolution is more accurate, only that.

There are a lot of theories about how man reached America, we all know that the only one that has solid bases is the one of Behring diring the Glaciar Age, but Americanism is also taught even if we all know it's impossible and that Florentino Ameghino mixed some human and ape bones to create the "homo americanis". 

If they teach that fake, why shouldn't they teach Creationism?

Iván

Reed Lover wrote: It is perfectly reasonable (if not desirable) that the Creationist theory of life be taught in class, but only in religious education. As for the so-called holes in  Evolutionary theory can anyone explain to me why the bones of human beings are not found alongside dinosaur bones.

They are looking in the wrong place, Reed.  They should be looking for human bones INSIDE the dino bones.

Reed Lover wrote: It is perfectly reasonable (if not desirable) that the Creationist theory of life be taught in class, but only in religious education. As for the so-called holes in  Evolutionary theory can anyone explain to me why the bones of human beings are not found alongside dinosaur bones. For that matter can anyone explain how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs? Why are dinosaurs never mentioned in the Bible?

Actually Reed...it is a stretch...but the Bible does mention leviathons in the Book of Job. The word dinosaur doesn't exist during the writing of The Bible. Perhaps the mentioning of leviathons is actually a reference toward dinosaurs.

gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: It is perfectly reasonable (if not desirable) that the Creationist theory of life be taught in class, but only in religious education. As for the so-called holes in  Evolutionary theory can anyone explain to me why the bones of human beings are not found alongside dinosaur bones. For that matter can anyone explain how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs? Why are dinosaurs never mentioned in the Bible? Actually Reed...it is a stretch...but the Bible does mention leviathons in the Book of Job. The word dinosaur doesn't exist during the writing of The Bible. Perhaps the mentioning of leviathons is actually a reference toward dinosaurs.

So why havent human bones been found near dinosaur's. After all we'd just be a meal to them.......

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: It is perfectly reasonable (if not desirable) that the Creationist theory of life be taught in class, but only in religious education. As for the so-called holes in  Evolutionary theory can anyone explain to me why the bones of human beings are not found alongside dinosaur bones. For that matter can anyone explain how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs? Why are dinosaurs never mentioned in the Bible? Actually Reed...it is a stretch...but the Bible does mention leviathons in the Book of Job. The word dinosaur doesn't exist during the writing of The Bible. Perhaps the mentioning of leviathons is actually a reference toward dinosaurs. So why havent human bones been found near dinosaur's. After all we'd just be a meal to them.......

Maybe....being intelligent creatures and them being really stupid we ran and hid when the meat eaters came around and we lived in harmony with the plant eaters. Perhaps we herded them....I don't know.

Their bones are bigger so it took a longer time for them to erode.

Maybe dinosaurs didn't live in Africa.....too hot for them....eh?

goose wrote: [QUOTE=gdub411] ...good call. It isn't right to teach children one without the other. It automatically will legitimize the Theory of Evolution since Creationism isn't taught in public schools. People should be able to hear both ends of the argument and decide which one they prefer.

As was said at the top of this thread, there are scientists and teachers who are teaching the Theory of Creation using facts. I have seen their arguments and theories and they're more convincing than you think. They also debunc much of what The Theory of Evolution says. I am not saying one is better than the other, but scientifically they both lay their arguments out well enough. It should be up to the students to decide which one fits them.

gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: It is perfectly reasonable (if not desirable) that the Creationist theory of life be taught in class, but only in religious education. As for the so-called holes in  Evolutionary theory can anyone explain to me why the bones of human beings are not found alongside dinosaur bones. For that matter can anyone explain how humans could have co-existed with dinosaurs? Why are dinosaurs never mentioned in the Bible? Actually Reed...it is a stretch...but the Bible does mention leviathons in the Book of Job. The word dinosaur doesn't exist during the writing of The Bible. Perhaps the mentioning of leviathons is actually a reference toward dinosaurs. So why havent human bones been found near dinosaur's. After all we'd just be a meal to them....... Maybe....being intelligent creatures and them being really stupid we ran and hid when the meat eaters came around and we lived in harmony with the plant eaters. Perhaps we herded them....I don't know. Their bones are bigger so it took a longer time for them to erode. Maybe dinosaurs didn't live in Africa.....too hot for them....eh?

Anal sex must really be bad for your cognitive powers!

" I'm gonna knock some sense out of you boy!"  I want you to squeeel like a piggy

Velvetclown wrote: You found God? If nobody claims him in 30 days, he's yours!

LOL!

just to be safe, post some pictures around the neighborhood. I'd hate to deprive someone of a beloved family deity.

James Lee wrote: Whatever the merits of the individual theories, public schools are an instituation funded by various sources, and those sources have the option of dictating curriculum or removing their support. In many cases, the funding comes from the taxpayers...and if a majority of the taxpayers in a given region believe that a giant purple aardvark belched out the world, then the schools may be told to teach that. That's democracy...

Damn it James!  I told you to keep what I believed to yourself!  Now everyone knows!

James Lee wrote: #11: Thou Shalt not Use Carbon Dating

Carbon dating has proven to be inaccurate on many occasions.

Rekkr wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Supreme Court didn't had the right to ban the theory of Creationism, because is a clear attempt to the freedom of faith and against the universalism in education. No, they should have the right to ban it. They banned the theory of creationism from PUBLIC (as in government run) schools because of separation of church and state. Having the public schools teach creationism is not only unscientific, but is patronizing a religion - Christianity. I am an evolutionist, and I know much about science. The theory of evolution is on very solid ground and what few errors there are hardly question the theory. On the other hand, creationism has no basis in reality. PERIOD. I would rather see Intelligent Design taught over creationism, even though there isn't much proof for that either. I think that schools should do their job correctly and "educate", not "preach". If parents are unhappy with evolution being taught, or anything else, then they can either pull their kids out of school, or explain to them why what they are learning is false (in their opinion of course). gdub411 wrote: aqualung28 wrote: They should teach both of them or teach none at all ...good call. It isn't right to teach children one without the other. It automatically will legitimize the Theory of Evolution since Creationism isn't taught in public schools. People should be able to hear both ends of the argument and decide which one they prefer. I think Theory is the key word here. Neither one is based on hard evidence and one could poke holes in either one. Teaching "both end of the argument" would not be teaching Creationism vs. Evolution. Creationism is not "an argument against evolution" because (1) it doesn't even bring up any valid points and has no backing science (2) creationism is hardly an alternative to evolution. Why teach creationism? Why teach that the earth is 6000 years old? Why teach that evolution is wrong even though evolution is supported by tons of scientific evidence? Where will that get us? Nowhere.

I couldn't agree more. Evolution has facts on it's side,creationism has none. That simple fact should end the discussion right there but I have a gut instinct that it will not. After all,the human species has a very annoying habit: Arguing against hard,undeniable facts simply because they don't like them. There's not enough withering scorn in my intellectual arsenal to convey what I truly think of that.

I just saw on the cover of "The Weekly World News" that the first humans were actually a gay couple (nicknamed Adam and Ed, no less).

Also in that issue, "Bigfoot Captured in College Panty Raid". I'm still regretting not buying it. When you need the real answers, factual journalism like that is the best way to go.

BTW: of course carbon dating isn't 100% reliable. It's a lot more reliable than facts converyed by word-of-mouth, though...which was how the Bible stories circulated before they made it into a convenient written volume.

No, they should have the right to ban it. They banned the theory of creationism from PUBLIC (as in government run) schools because of separation of church and state. Having the public schools teach creationism is not only unscientific, but is patronizing a religion - Christianity.

Absolutely disagree Rekkr, all theories must be taught, as I said before, if we all know that humans reached America by the Behring Strait, why do schools still teach the Polynesian and Ameghino's theory that says mankind is native from America?

None except Hrdlika’s theory of Behring has real scientific support, but all are taught in schools.

When someone bans a theory because he simply doesn't believe in it, lets be afraid because it’s the beginning of fundamentalism. more than 80% of USA Citizens believe God had some relation with the creation of Universe, why does that 13% has the right to ban what most people believes in.

I'm not a Creationist, but I defend the right to teach that theory, because that's what democracy and universalism means.

I remember a Jewish lawyer who defended the right of a Neo Nazi group to have reunions, he obviously was against nazism, but he was in favor of the right of this lunatics to express their ideas.

What will be next, burn  books because we don't agree with what they say?

What is closer to Dark Ages, to allow all theories and let people chose or to ban what you don’t believe in and force all people to believe in it?

Iván

To cover all theories is a good thing. But discuss them in the place where they belong.

Science-class is about science, eg. theories, supported by facts, and empirical data, no religion, or believes have a place in that.

Philosophical/religious debate. covers the interpretation of those facts and theories in the religious/philosophical context, and should be taught in the corresponding classes.

Every person or group has the right not to believe facts or oppose them with believe, but to teach the youngsters from those groups not the facts as we know them, you deprive them of their right to choose. Ignorance belongs in the dark-ages not in our schools.

yes alternative creation theories have a place in public schools, but only in the appropriate context.

tuxon wrote: To cover all theories is a good thing. But discuss them in the place where they belong. Science-class is about science, eg. theories, supported by facts, and empirical data, no religion, or believes have a place in that. Philosophical/religious debate. covers the interpretation of those facts and theories in the religious/philosophical context, and should be taught in the corresponding classes. Every person or group has the right not to believe facts or oppose them with believe, but to teach the youngsters from those groups not the facts as we know them, you deprive them of their right to choose. Ignorance belongs in the dark-ages not in our schools. yes alternative creation theories have a place in public schools, but only in the appropriate context.

I really understand and appricate what you are saying Tuxon.  I for one wish it could be so.  The problem is lawyers have taken things to such extreems that you are not allowed to broach subjects of religion excpet in a very limited historical context as to not cross the line of church and state. At least not to kids under the age of 17.  You have to wait almost for college before you can study that.  How is it in your country?

In holland we've got it pretty good separated. I went to a Catholic primary school, where there was (limited) time spent on Catholichism, but also basic understanding of other religions was tought.

On secondary school there was a special class for religious teachings (covering the basics from all great religions and humanistic views).

I know from one of my friends that religion played no role in University (I asked him a couple of days back when this debate began), which is logical, such debates where held outside the classrooms.

My personal believe entails a complete separation between religious and scientific topics.

Scientific theories and facts can/may back up certain religious thoughts (though by my knowledge no scientific evidence exists for any religion), but believe can't back up scientific theories, you need empirically proven facts for that.

And like I said a million times before, those scientific facts can be discussed on a philosophical/religious debate to comprehend there meaning in a religious context.

Scientific or not, Creationism is a theory about the creation of the universe. Should be also taught, if you want you can teach all the arguments against it and also in favor, but teach it, let people know it or are Civil Rights fanatics (Yes they are also extremists and fanatics as much as the crazy fundamentalists) afraid someone could believe in it?

The problem is lawyers have taken things to such extreems that you are not allowed to broach subjects of religion excpet in a very limited historical context as to not cross the line of church and state.

You made a good point there Garion, it's prohibited to teach Creationism in a biology class because it's not scientific, but it's also prohibited to teach religion.

Tell me, where is the right place?

Ignorance belongs in the dark-ages not in our schools.

You are right Tuxon, ignorance is the lack of knowledge, pretending to hide a theory from kids is promoting ignorance.

Catholic Church (my church) tried to hide all other knowledge to the people and those are the dark ages, aren't you pretending to do the same hiding the posibility of Creationism to the kids even if you and me don't believe in it?

Iván

James Lee wrote: I just saw on the cover of "The Weekly World News" that the first humans were actually a gay couple (nicknamed Adam and Ed, no less). Also in that issue, "Bigfoot Captured in College Panty Raid". I'm still regretting not buying it. When you need the real answers, factual journalism like that is the best way to go. BTW: of course carbon dating isn't 100% reliable. It's a lot more reliable than facts converyed by word-of-mouth, though...which was how the Bible stories circulated before they made it into a convenient written volume.

Now that's news!!!. I will have to try and pick that one up.

Where should we teach religion, Ivan?

The tool shed. (Beware the "celibate" -- they're horny as hell!)

Seriously though, church & Sunday school. Should be up to the parents to take you there or not.

Now, simply countering with "therefore, don't teach evolution in school" is like saying "don't teach any science which might conflict with the Bible."

Science and logic say that Noah's Ark, for example, is impossible (at best, alegory) for many reasons.

Just 2: Water can't be destroyed -- where did it (enough to flood the earth) all go? Not everyone on earth was Jewish at the supposed time of the great Flood. Why were those who had never even heard of Jehovah punished/destroyed? 

Now, shall we not teach those basic scientific and historic facts? Don't they conflict with the Bible?

Don't teach any philosophy either.

Or mythology -- that's all lies.

Try this: "This is the theory of evolution. This is how Charles Darwin, most scientists, and many people think it must have happened...."

Archeology class, 101: We don't think that early cavemen had language (more theory). Our much closer relatives, time-wise (wait -- don't teach the fossil record, and how deeper strata is generally older!), neanderthal man, judging by the bones in his throat, seems to have been equipped for speech, but his language, if any, was likely very rudimentary. He most likely didn't have the concept of "future" (thus he reacted -- he  didn't plan). Why do we think this? Over his entire time on earth, his tools & weapons/burials progressed or changed not a whit. In contrast, modern human relics were constantly changing/improving.

This is scientific theory -- shall we not teach it?

Despite what GWB and many other born-again Christians believe, all scientific and rational evidence says that men and dinosaurs did not simultaneously cohabit the earth. Not even close.

This is theory -- not absolutely proven.

Absolute "proof" (given the supposed "possibility" of invisible rhinos in my room/ alternate universes/alternate laws of physics) is darned hard to come by! Only "logical' answer: teach nothing.

Meanwhile, back in the here and now....

"Global warming, and man's ability to negatively impact upon the earthly environment, is just a THEORY. Tra la la la la...."

Global warming is just a theory. Last year we had the coolest summer in Chicago than I can remember. It was only 30 years or so that scientists were thinking of salting the ice bergs with some sort of black salt to slow the ice -age. Perhaps there is something to global warming, but I would say we do not understand nature as well as we think.

The theory of evolution is a threat and contention toward Creation that if one is taught, than so should the other. Sometimes schools need to use common sense to decide things. I'm all for learning more so teach both. The seperation of church and state has gone too far as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure our forefathers are rolling in their graves at the extent we took their intentions to.

The world as we knew it in the Bible was pretty much the Mediterrean Sea and there is proof, according to the history channel that the Mediterrean may have flooded. Watch Mysteries of the Bible for details as I don't recall anymore what they were.

^ !  Put yer head further up yer ass, Gdub. Now -- move toward the light....

Get that gasoline....

Peter wrote: ^ !  Put yer head further up yer ass, Gdub. Now -- move toward the light.... Get that gasoline....

You know what I am sick and tired of. Being disregarded as some sort of simpleton. Just because I have a goofy sense of humour and like to display it doesn't lessen my knowledge. You guys better back off a bit and give me some credit for having some sort of brain capacity.

It is you guys who simply refuse to argue rationally about this that need to get their heads out of their asses. Just assume everything you say is right Peter even though my 3rd statement came from historians and scientists. Who should I hold more creedance to. Peter, a substitute teacher, or well regarded historians?

gdub411 wrote: Peter wrote: ^ !  Put yer head further up yer ass, Gdub. Now -- move toward the light.... Get that gasoline.... You know what I am sick and tired of. Being disregarded as some sort of simpleton. Just because I have a goofy sense of humour and like to display it doesn't lessen my knowledge. You guys better back off a bit and give me some credit for having some sort of brain capacity. It is you guys who simply refuse to argue rationally about this that need to get their heads out of their asses. Just assume everything you say is right Peter even though my 3rd statement came from historians and scientists. Who should I hold more creedance to. Peter, a substitute teacher, or well regarded historians?

Peter's just being his goofy self, don't take it too seriously.

Velvetclown wrote: We all get our share of abuse in here , it is just part of the fun. Chill out !!!!!!

I will chill as soon as I am given some sort of credit for having a brain. I suppose if I towed the line and was liberal like the rest of you, I would be given more credit. Believe me, when I say there are some true turnip minds out there voting democratic, because their public schools told them to. I once heard a radio guy ask a bunch of questions to democratic voters. Easy ones like who the Vice President was and they couldn't even answer that. All they knew was they weren't voting for Bush. Why?...they had no intelligible answer.

Do not belittle my intellect,just because I am a republican and spiritual as well. It is an easy way of disregarding my arguments I guess, but still....not correct. I don't belittle any of you, and would like to be given the same consideration. I may take some pokes, but it is all in good fun and I don't think anyone takes me seriously.

I am henceforth drawing the line. I can argue my points as articulately and intelligently as any of you would be intellectuals.

PS: Nothing personal, you understand, Gdub -- just my children's and grandkid's OXYGEN SUPPLY.

I don't think you are necessarily below average intelligence -- just willfully deluded/uninformed.

You responded for the "nay" side  -- could have been anyone, pal.

Don't mistake me for "everyone" -- it's just me here. No conspiracy.

Now do you see why I don't give strangers my address?

Steely Dan invented prog!

Do you actually believe the people on the history channel are for brain washing the Christians? Hardly! Why not use it as a source of knowledge when it is as good as any book? They also pretty much put to rest the whole Adam and Eve thing and Noah's Arc with evidence against such mythology. For every scientist and historian they bring in in favor of the Bible, they bring in others who debunc it. One of the facts that was hard to debunc was the Atlantic Ocean flooding into the Mediterrean as the land bridge between Europe and Africa gave way and a flood occured. The world as I am quite sure you very well know Peter wasn't always as it is now. The Mediterrean used to be a lake according to some scientists. The flood wasn't a rainstorm as the Bible suggests, but rather a flood unprecedented even today.

Why do you think I base everything on faith? I really am not that church going Bible thumper you think I am. I'm gay for heaven's sake. There are alot of issues i have with Christianity so don't even pretend to understand or know me Peter.

Gdub, the problem  is that both fanatics and non believers take the Old Testament or Torah literally, the first ones to pretend the Old Testament is infalible and the second ones to make believers seem like a bunch of ignorants.

Old Testament is only referential, the mention of days or years is not exact, remember the Bible says A day of God is like a Thousand years for humans, this gives you a new perspective.

I've seen people say Mathusalem couldn't been alive for 900 years so the Bible lies, but according to some studies, early Jewish considered a lunar cicle (28 days) as a year, so that would have ment Mathusalem lived for 75 years, probably 2 or 3 times the live expectancy on those days but perfectly posible.

People say it's impossible without a collapse of earth that by Joshuas command  the earth halt it's rotation for 2 days, but recently an Jewish born atheist proffesor Avital Pilpel from the University of Columbia wrote:

At the time, battles were fought only by day, and only
in one place. The army that first broke ranks was routed
from the field of battle and lost. Now: the sun was about
to set, and Joshua saw that the Israelites would win - if
they only continue fighting and not break off the engagement
for the night. The first part of his command, then, is to
his troops, telling them to KEEP FIGHTING AS IF IT IS STILL
DAY: as if the sun stands in Gibeon, which was the field
of battle.

Things have more than one meaning in Old Testament.

Most of us believe in evolution (even though I believe it was guided by a superior force called God), we're not a bunch of ignorants or fanatics.

So why don't teach both theories, what are Civil Rights defenders afraid of if it's all a myth?

Iván

With some research(yuk!), I could give you scientific evidence that shows the earth is doing what is fairly natural for itself. Everything runs in cycles when it comes to nature and eventually there will be another ice age.

What about the statement as to why some scientists were looking into melting the icebergs to slow down the ice-age by the way?I am NOT making this up. My point is to definitely research into the possibility of global warming, but let's not all head underground because the sun has been warm in areas. 

I agree with you Ivan. Why not teach both...in public schools to boot. Also I do not take what was said in the Old testament literally. If I did, I would have given up my gay lifestyle long ago as I don't have any desire to go to hell.

Also, I am in the camp that believes that everything out of the Astostle Paul's mouth is mularkey. I believe when he found he couldn't snuff out Christianity, he chose to pervert the teachings instead. Look into what Jesus taught and what Paul was spewing. They differ greatly. (How's that for conspiracy theory?)

Sorry pal -- I don't really watch TV, nor did I "run away" earlier -- I just type REAL SLOW (it takes forever to individually colour letters, too!), especially when I've had a few....

How am I doing with the contentious topics, James?

But seriously, Gdubble-standard:How about those mellotrons, eh?

Tra la la....

OK guys -- we can agree to disagree, no?

Still, I say teach religion in church (or prog music forums!) or world religions class. Don't force me to "teach" what I don't believe in. I don't think I'd be very convincing.

gdub411 wrote: Who should I hold more creedance to. Peter, a substitute teacher, or well regarded historians?

Er, not to be too PEDANTIC, but that's full-time college professor to you, delivery boy, and: your historians, or mine?(I have archeologists too!)

You started it! I'm telling Maami! Wah!

gdub411 wrote: What's with the double standard comment? You have accused me of that in the past and I think I take a little offence to it actually Petey Pooper Scooper.

First, the "dub" leads to "dubble." Then, you are openly gay, but ultra-religious, and vote anti-homosexual republican.

(I'm so witty.)

Pooper Scooper?! That is the unkindest cut of all, bru-tay!

Can we stop now? I need a beer....

Peter wrote: Where should we teach religion, Ivan? The tool shed. (Beware the "celibate" -- they're horny as hell!) Seriously though, church & Sunday school. Should be up to the parents to take you there or not. Now, simply countering with "therefore, don't teach evolution in school" is like saying "don't teach any science which might conflict with the Bible." Science and logic say that Noah's Ark, for example, is impossible (at best, alegory) for many reasons. Just 2: Water can't be destroyed -- where did it (enough to flood the earth) all go? Not everyone on earth was Jewish at the supposed time of the great Flood. Why were those who had never even heard of Jehovah punished/destroyed?  Now, shall we not teach those basic scientific and historic facts? Don't they conflict with the Bible? Don't teach any philosophy either. Or mythology -- that's all lies. Try this: "This is the theory of evolution. This is how Charles Darwin, most scientists, and many people think it must have happened...." Archeology class, 101: We don't think that early cavemen had language (more theory). Our much closer relatives, time-wise (wait -- don't teach the fossil record, and how deeper stata is generally older!), neanderthal man, judging by the bones in his throat, seems to have been equipped for speech, but his language, if any, was likely very rudimentary. He most likely didn't have the concept of "future" (thus he reacted -- he  didn't plan). Why do we think this? Over his entire time on earth, his tools & weapons/burials progressed or changed not a whit. In contrast, modern human relics were constantly changing/improving. This is scientific theory -- shall we not teach it? Despite what GWB and many other born-again Christians believe, all scientific and rational evidence says that men and dinosaurs did not simultaneously cohabit the earth. Not even close. This is theory -- not absolutely proven. Absolute "proof" (given the supposed "possibility" of invisible rhinos in my room/ alternate universes/alternate laws of physics) is darned hard to come by! Only "logical' answer: teach nothing. Meanwhile, back in the here and now.... "Global warming, and man's ability to negatively impact upon the earthly environment, is just a THEORY. Tra la la la la...."

Peter,

I don't want to have Religion taught as dogma but to have most major religions which affect the globe (you can't deny it) tought  as a way of Understanding of others cultures.  I reference that Article that Maani posted in the India and Christianity post as an example of ignorance.  Separation of church and state a good thing

to the point of ignorance that someone gets murder?

Isn't education to help our children (and ourselves) make choices to be better people? How can we do that by cutting out completely something that is believed (in many different forms) as most of the rest of the world does?

Peter wrote: gdub411 wrote: Who should I hold more creedance to. Peter, a substitute teacher, or well regarded historians? Er, not to be too PEDANTIC, but that's full-time college professor to you, delivery boy, and: your historians, or mine?(I have archeologists too!) You started it! I'm telling Mammi! Wah!

That is Hazardous Materials Responder. I don't drive a truck. I have to know if a chemical that is leaking in the building is dangerous or not. I have taken many classes on it, so don't belittle my job and I promise in the future not to belittle yours.

That was a low blow about the Mammi bit. You know how much I have regretted in having to do what I did. In the end, it was for the better...don't you think?

Still, I say teach religion in church, or world religions class. Don't force me to "teach" what I don't believe in. I don't think I'd be very convincing.

Teaching Religion in Religion class would be ok if Religion class was allowed. But to mention in 1 or 2 hours of an entire year thet there's an alternative theory called Creationism and explain the scientific facts against it, is not religion, it's a theory of creation.

I don't believe in Communism, not even when I was a student in a University where most of the people was Communist, but when I taught Universal History I had to mention Marx & Engels theories even when I am sure they are wrong, because that was in the curriculum that I had to respect (of course I explained why I believed they were wrong).

If everybody taught only what they believe in, then poor kids, they would loose a lot of knowledge.

By the way there is 83% of USA population that believes God participated in some way during creation, so it won't be too much trouble to find a teacher willing to explain it.

Iván

Garion81 wrote: Peter, I don't want to have Religion taught as dogma but to have most major religions which affect the globe (you can't deny it) tought  as a way of Understanding of others cultures.  I reference that Article that Maani posted in the India and Christianity post as an example of ignorance.  Separation of church and state a good thing to the point of ignorance that someone gets murder? Isn't education to help our children (and ourselves) make choices to be better people? How can we do that by cutting out completely something that is believed (in many different forms) as most of the rest of the world does?

I am all for that, Garion, and did not argue otherwise. I have studied both the Koran and the Bible, for example. (See my comment about teaching creationism in World Religions classes -- no argument from me.) Nor would I ban religious schools.

Plato's mom was a virgin, BTW.

Common claim, in those days.

gdub411 wrote: Peter wrote: gdub411 wrote: Who should I hold more creedance to. Peter, a substitute teacher, or well regarded historians? Er, not to be too PEDANTIC, but that's full-time college professor to you, delivery boy, and: your historians, or mine?(I have archeologists too!) You started it! I'm telling Mammi! Wah! That is Hazardous Materials Responder. I don't drive a truck. I have to know if a chemical that is leaking in the building is dangerous or not. I have taken many classes on it, so don't belittle my job and I promise in the future not to belittle yours. That was a low blow about the Mammi bit. You know how much I have regretted in having to do what I did. In the end, it was for the better...don't you think?

Whoops -- misunderstanding, friend! I CERTAINLY WAS NOT REFERRING TO, OR DISRESPECTING, YOUR MOM.  Maami = Maani (lame, obtuse joke). Sorry. (The printed medium is a second-rate means of communication.)

You "dissed' my occupation first, no?

I have friends in all walks of life. Yours sounds like an important, interesting occupation.

 Before securing my current job, I have been unemployed, and worked 15 years as an unskilled hospital porter. UPS or NASA, I could still gladly be your friend -- unlike many, I almost never ask new acquaintances what they do for a living -- it's irrelevant to me. (They'll tell me, if they want to.)

Peace, as the Maan would say....

ivan_2068 wrote: Teaching Religion in Religion class would be ok if Religion class was allowed. But to mention in 1 or 2 hours of an entire year thet there's an alternative theory called Creationism and explain the scientific facts against it, is not religion, it's a theory of creation. I don't believe in Communism, not even when I was a student in a University where most of the people was Communist, but when I taught Universal History I had to mention Marx & Engels theories even when I am sure they are wrong, because that was in the curriculum that I had to respect (of course I explained why I believed they were wrong). If everybody taught only what they believe in, then poor kids, they would loose a lot of knowledge. By the way there is 83% of USA population that believes God participated in some way during creation, so it won't be too much trouble to find a teacher willing to explain it. Iván

Bit of a contradiction there, no? As I implied, you did not sell Marxism well, nor would I sell creationism well. Teaching something that you actually believe in, and are passionate about, is much more effective, is it not? (Perhaps as a lawyer -- NO DISRESPECT INTENDED! -- you have a different perspective on presenting that which you may not believe to be true? [Your job, and the client's right] Does every defence lawyer truly believe his client to be innocent? Is said lawyer not more effective when he or she genuinely believes his or herself to be on the side of the truth?)

 Have a world religions class (such are legal, in my country) taught by a qualified, hopefully neutral teacher, and/or take your kids to Sunday school. Teach/preach all the creationism/marxism/anyism you want at home, too.

I really don't want to "fight" with you guys -- we have all clearly stated our positions, and they all seem to be (predictably -- we are all adults) firm. Can we stop now?

gdub411 wrote: but until then....Have at thee!!

Sorry, g-bub, but that particular portal is "exit only!"

[QUOTE=gdub411]I am so good with my job actually, that one sniff I can tell whether i am dealing with a Highly corrosive or Flammable liquid 90% of the time. QUOTE]

So, you admit you're a brain-damaged gas & solvent huffer, then?

I'm a Lepage's man, myself....

It is a good discusion.  Everything, every idea has merit. Everyone has merit. Certainly we cannot solve the debate because maybe there is no solution but maybe for a moment in time we came together as the world and helped each other to think. 

and that is not a bad thing.

This is a really cool place to be.

Garion81 wrote:   It is a good discusion.  Everything, every idea has merit. Everyone has merit. Certainly we cannot solve the debate because maybe there is no solution but maybe for a moment in time we came together as the world and helped each other to think.  and that is not a bad thing.   This is a really cool place to be.

Says you, you nucking futbar!

Peter wrote: Garion81 wrote:   It is a good discusion.  Everything, every idea has merit. Everyone has merit. Certainly we cannot solve the debate because maybe there is no solution but maybe for a moment in time we came together as the world and helped each other to think.  and that is not a bad thing.   This is a really cool place to be.   Says you, you nucking futbar!

That would be me.

Ain't beer grand?

I love you guys! yer the bessht fuggin' guys in da world! yer my ONLY reel frens....

Hey, Carrion, stop lookin' at my wife!

Why I otta....

Peter wrote: Ain't beer grand? I love you guys! yer the bessht fuggin' guys in da world! yer my ONLY reel frens.... Hey, Carrion, stop lookin' at my wife! Why I otta....

Do your students get this much entertainment out of you?

All right I have had some vodka tonight (ran out of beer) But it

is now 12:08 am on the West Coast and your three hours ahead of me

So 

gdub411 wrote: Totally not true. I did Plato's mom when I was a greek scholar back then. ...Aphrodite was better!

Yeah, but yer usual Greek style  left her still technically a virgin, and would hardly lead to conception, in any case.

Ask any scientist....

Dr. Ben Dover, prominent proctologist, explains: You take your thing, see, and you put it in her thing, see, and you move it back and forth....

 = Go to bed, Pingu!

We're making the mistake of considering education as a source of learning, rather than day-care until children are old enough to enter the workforce.

Schools should be falling over themselves to teach Intelligent Design, because it continues to provide the child with an example of a central authority which should be obeyed...making it easier for the child to accept the submissive role they will assume under teachers, administration, bosses, religious leaders, law enforcement, financial institutions, and government.

On the other hand, Evolution's main contribution to society was to provide the strong a justification for inflicting misery on the weak. Where would our beloved corporate sharks be without it? Between Darwin and Nietzsche, the educated bully has a wealth of adaptable rationale for their behavior.

Two tastes that taste great together. Plus, the more the liberal media gets hysterical over one small town at war over Evolution, the less time it has to spend publicizing the gaping holes in Bush's revised "No Child left Behind" policy (tentatively renamed, "Every child left behind equally").

James Lee wrote: We're making the mistake of considering education as a source of learning, rather than day-care until children are old enough to enter the workforce. Schools should be falling over themselves to teach Intelligent Design, because it continues to provide the child with an example of a central authority which should be obeyed...making it easier for the child to accept the submissive role they will assume under teachers, administration, bosses, religious leaders, law enforcement, financial institutions, and government. On the other hand, Evolution's main contribution to society was to provide the strong a justification for inflicting misery on the weak. Where would our beloved corporate sharks be without it? Between Darwin and Nietzsche, the educated bully has a wealth of adaptable rationale for their behavior. Two tastes that taste great together. Plus, the more the liberal media gets hysterical over one small town at war over Evolution, the less time it has to spend publicizing the gaping holes in Bush's revised "No Child left Behind" policy (tentatively renamed, "Every child left behind equally").

You need to lighten up James. Don't worry...Be Happy!!

gdub411 wrote: You need to lighten up James. Don't worry...Be Happy!!

You only see the negative side of me. I usually post only when I've got insomnia, so I'm already in a nasty frame of mind.

James Lee wrote: gdub411 wrote: You need to lighten up James. Don't worry...Be Happy!! You only see the negative side of me. I usually post only when I've got insomnia, so I'm already in a nasty frame of mind.

Well it is 3:27 am here so I know all about insomnia. Gotta go to bed soon before those insufferable Brits wake up.

I like that idea...the more I drink, the more likely it is that I'll get rid of all this useless knowledge.

Hehe, just remembered Steve Martin saying "You cooked her nines!" in The man with Two Brains.

Peter wrote:

Perhaps as a lawyer -- NO DISRESPECT INTENDED! -- you have a different perspective on presenting that which you may not believe to be true?

No my friend (Because I consider you as a friend even when we disagree for firsttime), I quitted my job in Volvo and a huge salary (after several years of being used to receive a juicy check every month) and went to kick cans for a couple of months, because they asked me to do something I thought was incorrect, and that was to lie a client offering to forgive his debt if he returned a US$ 150,000 bus and then start a Civil trial to repossess his house.

I could not live or sleep if I did so or if I had to lie in a court to set free a rapist or a criminal. In Perú you can get a very lucrative job if you defend drug dealers, but I always refused to do that.

I'm not a Penal lawyer because I don't like to hide truth behind technical BS but the few times I took a criminal case was when I was sure he was innocent (Maybe that's why I have to work every day to eat and don't have a house on the beach as many of my friends).

But teaching something in what you don't believe is not the same, yes I taught Marxism as part of a history class, but I stated clearly before every class that I thought he system was a fraud that proved to be less than imperfect in every country where it was instituted.

I don’t feel I lied to them or betrayed my beliefs, because I was clear to say what my opinion was. They could force me to teach Marxism but nobody couldtell me I had to say I believe in the system.

Any teacher is in the obligation to give the student a panoramic view of what you're teaching, even if you don't believe in it. Teach them and let them chose.

Iván

Man, am I glad I went out last night... and not stuck here with all of you! Somewhat productive night however, going out to a greasy diner for brunch now... cause I don't make breakfast at home for just anybody...

I missed all this!

Gdub-I suggest that as intelligent as you might be, you should not believe everything you see on the TV. All forms of media are manipulable.There is very little expressed in the Media that doesnt represent the writer's beliefs and influences.We tend to remember the sound-bites anyway.

The Mediterranean? My head is shaking now, in disbelief.

Every book I have read ( and I havent read them all) states that the Med "flooded" over 5 million years ago.There were no humans to witness this, let alone rationalise it as an act of God.
My take on this is that the Med has had many periods in Geological time when it has either flooded or dried, but none of these has been witnessed by anyone who could relate the story.

Anyway here is what the History Channel actually says:

Deluge

Deluge, in the Bible, the overwhelming flood that covered the earth and destroyed every living thing except the family of Noah and the creatures in his ark. Archaeology has yielded little trace of the biblical flood, but some oceanographers and geophysicists have speculated that the actual deluge occurred in the Black Sea region some 7,600 years ago, when rising sea levels in the Mediterranean (due to melting glaciers) flooded into the Black Sea and inundated the surrounding coast.

Many archaeologists and historians, however, do not believe that the inundation of the ancient Black Sea coast is the origin of the flood story, regarding the periodic flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates as a more likely model for the tale. Flood stories resembling the biblical story are found in the folklore of many races-Native Americans, Fiji Islanders, and Australian aborigines. The earliest known of these stories is Sumerian, one form being found in the record of Berossus (3d cent. B.C.), another on a tablet of the Gilgamesh epic of at least 2000 B.C.

So, Gdub,dont ever appear as a witness for me in a murder trial!

Creationism in schools:

Another interesting point, apart from the fact that thankfully I'm not the only one who gets over-wrought after too much alcochol, is that why should Biblical Creationism be presented as the only alternative to Evolution? What about other theories? I am not familiar with them, but how do American Indians describe creation or Aborigines or the Inuit. What about Moslems,Hindus, Buddhists? Should we teach all these because I'm damn sure they have these Religion V Evolution conflicts in other cultures.The Chinese have their own views.Ancient Romans, Greeks,Egyptians,Mesopotamians, Assyrians,Persians.
Why not cause utter chaos and present all these equally. Or we could just watch the History Channel!