toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[rexlunae]

I think it speaks more of Myers' reputation than anything else.

His reputation for making creationists look like fools, perhaps. I really can't imagine what else they would have been worried about.

It seems he did enough of that on his blog.

Not sure how blogging could really create a disturbance, but can you really blame him? I mean, he was expelled from Expelled!!! You can't write better cover.

 

[kmoney]

It would be fine in a discussion of religion.

:up: This.


Creationism is a religious concept so, if taught or discussed, should be in a religion or philosophy class, not science. Similarly, no science teacher should teach a lack of god.

However, if you want to discuss young earth science or science that challenges evolution/old earth, I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Flipper]

Hey, I can think of someone whose academic freedom is being stifled because of his beliefs - William Dembski. Ironically, Dembski and his cohorts spent quite a lot of time touting Expelled on his intelligent design blog.

Dembski is an old earth creationist who believes that the Noachic flood was a local event, and he was quite unabashed in expressing his views. This was something his fundamentalist employers at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary would not tolerate:

Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson told the Witness that while he disagrees with Dembski’s assessment of the earth’s age, he is confident of his character, Christian commitment and adherence to the Baptist Faith & Message.

Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.

“Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,” he said.

Uh oh!

Source

 

[Alate_One]

Hey, I can think of someone whose academic freedom is being stifled because of his beliefs - William Dembski.

There's others too. Richard Colling wrote a book called "Random Designer". He had the audacity to promote the idea that evolution and Christianity could be compatible.

After Colling's book appeared, some conservative Nazarene churches told university officials that he should be fired. At first, university leaders defended Colling -- and he has praised them for doing so. But as the opposition increased, Olivet Nazarene barred him from teaching the general biology course, and barred anyone at the college from teaching from his book. Colling, who has tenure, continues to teach, but only small upper division courses that don't involve his book. An investigation by the AAUP (union that supports professors) found that the university violated Colling's academic freedom by barring him from teaching a course he had successfully taught without any "demonstrated cause" or faculty role in the decision. The association noted that the university has refused to alter these decisions even after appeals from Colling's department and the faculty grievance committee.

Source

 

[Stripe]

There's others too. Richard Colling wrote a book called "Random Designer". He had the audacity to promote the idea that evolution and Christianity could be compatible.

After Colling's book appeared, some conservative Nazarene churches told university officials that he should be fired. At first, university leaders defended Colling -- and he has praised them for doing so. But as the opposition increased, Olivet Nazarene barred him from teaching the general biology course, and barred anyone at the college from teaching from his book. Colling, who has tenure, continues to teach, but only small upper division courses that don't involve his book. An investigation by the AAUP (union that supports professors) found that the university violated Colling's academic freedom by barring him from teaching a course he had successfully taught without any "demonstrated cause" or faculty role in the decision. The association noted that the university has refused to alter these decisions even after appeals from Colling's department and the faculty grievance committee.

Source

Hey, I can think of someone whose academic freedom is being stifled because of his beliefs - William Dembski. Ironically, Dembski and his cohorts spent quite a lot of time touting Expelled on his intelligent design blog.

Dembski is an old earth creationist who believes that the Noachic flood was a local event, and he was quite unabashed in expressing his views. This was something his fundamentalist employers at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary would not tolerate:



Uh oh!

Source

OK. So where are the schools that will kick you out for talking about evolution?

 

[Alate_One]

OK. So where are the schools that will kick you out for talking about evolution?

Any school that has a statement of faith that includes creationism has the right to remove you from the college if you deviate from that statement of faith in your views and presentations. Most people that would teach evolution in said colleges are smart enough to not actually take the positions. It's not that you could not talk at all about evolution at a YEC college, but you couldn't present it in too much of a positive light or without YEC/ID whatever alongside. Just as you can talk about creationism and ID at a secular college so long as you do not equate them with science. I have, however, read curricula from certain university biology courses that skip over evolution/creationism completely.

 

[Stripe]

Any school that has a statement of faith that includes creationism has the right to remove you from the college if you deviate from that statement of faith in your views and presentations. Most people that would teach evolution in said colleges are smart enough to not actually take the positions. It's not that you could not talk at all about evolution at a YEC college, but you couldn't present it in too much of a positive light or without YEC/ID whatever alongside. Just as you can talk about creationism and ID at a secular college so long as you do not equate them with science. I have, however, read curricula from certain university biology courses that skip over evolution/creationism completely.

I do not like calling you a liar, Alate, but this is another example of how completely dishonest your conversation tactics are. IK said that men could be excluded, expelled and barred from secular institutions for showing any inkling toward creationism. You counter that men can be kicked out of Christian schools for talking about evolution. This is patently false. And now you're shifting the goalposts talking about up-front and honest contracts that are enforced.

You really need to be more honest. :up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I doubt many here, without an agenda at any rate, see Alate as a liar Stripe. Trying to defame someone with transparency like that ain't gonna work....

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Arthur's Brain.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:mock: Arthur's Brain.

Well, thats about the maturity and honest approach to scientific debate that one expects from you dude. No doubt it won't be long before you're whining that other folk don't interact with honesty and integrity on some thread. What a joke....

lain:

 

[Stripe]

Well, thats about the maturity and honest approach to scientific debate that one expects from you dude. No doubt it won't be long before you're whining that other folk don't interact with honesty and integrity on some thread. What a joke....

What have I said that is dishonest?

This all started out from the ignorance Sela showed when he said there are no peer reviewed creationist articles. Perhaps if one of you would simply concede this very simple point we could move on.

Or we could continue mocking you. That'd be fine as well.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What have I said that is dishonest?

This all started out from the ignorance Sela showed when he said there are no peer reviewed creationist articles. Perhaps if one of you would simply concede this very simple point we could move on.

Or we could continue mocking you. That'd be fine as well.

Sela's right. I've not found a single credible source indicating there are peer reviewed creationist articles either. Maybe if you actually provided such instead of links to internet home pages we could address it. If you're unwilling or unable then your "mockery" counts for as much as it always does anyway, zilch.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Sela's right. I've not found a single credible source indicating there are peer reviewed creationist articles either. Maybe if you actually provided such instead of links to internet home pages we could address it. If you're unwilling or unable then your "mockery" counts for as much as it always does anyway, zilch.

:mock: Arthur Brain.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:mock: Arthur Brain.

:mock: People who make claims and can't supply evidence.

Pretty difficult to concede a point when there's nothing to back it up, but then I suspect you already knew that else you'd have provided it. Carry on with the juvenile antics dude.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Hmm .. this peer review thing seems to have jumped threads somehow. :chuckle:

It was probably my fault. :noid:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hmm .. this peer review thing seems to have jumped threads somehow. :chuckle:

It was probably my fault. :noid:

Well with the subject matter it's all relative so it's bound to cross over. So far it's pretty evident that Sela's right and you're wrong, so how about being honest enough to admit it? After all if you're going to give lectures to Alate One about honesty you don't want to be a hypocrite do ya?

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile .. back on topic...

Alate is very relieved to have moved away from the discussion, but I'm headed back there...

Reading Genesis 1 is very reliant upon one's preconceptions. If you have a model of the universe set out already then it is pretty easy to trick yourself into believing that the language in Genesis 1 supports what you think when you're able to use concepts like "interpretation", translation, culture, intention and authorship to mould the simple concepts presented.

When it comes to evolutionists, they are already well trained to bend definitions and descriptions to fit their presuppositions. And when given license to interpret and appeal to cultural differences they have almost free reign with the uninitiated.

But what happens when we just look at Genesis? Just open your bible and read the first chapter verse-by-verse and see what it says. Of course it is very clear that there is no way Genesis can be describing evolution. Nor is there any indication that what is plainly said is not intended to be a simple recount of pre-history (before humans).

There are a couple of concepts that are difficult to understand because the terms used are not easily parsed. The two important terms are "Firmament" (raqiya) and "Heaven" (shamayim).

If History were to be taught then it should be done by concentrating on exactly what these terms might reasonably refer to. And the key point should be that they must be correctly parsed as both terms can well refer to very different things. Indeed, in Genesis 1, there are very good reasons to believe that both terms refer to different things in different verses by only reading that chapter.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Creationism can be taught as part of religion but not science, not until it receives affirmation through peer review at any rate...

 

[Stuu]

:mock: Arthur Brain.

Stripe's brain :mock: .

 

[Stuu]

Creationism can be taught as part of religion but not science, not until it receives affirmation through peer review at any rate...

As I pointed out earlier I can't see why creation / creationism should be taught at all.

Stuart