Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RACJ said:
Personally, I would rather see a curriculum in which objections to naturalism are presented. Scientists such as Steven C. Meyer and Michael Behe should be able to have their views discussed in the classroom. This would allow the students to think for themselves. A novel concept to the entrenched establishment , I know. 😉 Rob
Click to expand...
Why should these two “scientists” have their views discussed in the classroom? What about Gus from the hardware store who doubts gravity – should his views be given time in physics class? Why or why not? Barbara from the beauty salon rejects plate tectonics. Should her views be given time in geology class? Why or why not?
 
StAnastasia said:
Why should these two “scientists” have their views discussed in the classroom? What about Gus from the hardware store who doubts gravity – should his views be given time in physics class? Why or why not? Barbara from the beauty salon rejects plate tectonics. Should her views be given time in geology class? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
I saw some “brilliant scientists” on the History channel the other day–they were promoting a theory that aliens built the pyramids. Their arguments were (mostly) internally consistent, given that one first accepts a variety of unfounded assumptions and premises. Maybe we should give them a chunk of the history curriculum.
 
TMC said:
I saw some “brilliant scientists” on the History channel the other day–they were promoting a theory that aliens built the pyramids. Their arguments were (mostly) internally consistent, given that one first accepts a variety of unfounded assumptions and premises. Maybe we should give them a chunk of the history curriculum.
Click to expand...
My son was fascinated with that episode; we had a good discussion of scientific epistemology, and why we needn’t take these people (or Behe or Dembski) seriously.
 
StAnastasia said:
Why should these two “scientists” have their views discussed in the classroom? What about Gus from the hardware store who doubts gravity – should his views be given time in physics class? Why or why not? Barbara from the beauty salon rejects plate tectonics. Should her views be given time in geology class? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Just like they suppressed J Harlen Bretz because he dared go against the establishment. It took 50 years or so for them to realize he was right. Science should not be done by popularity, it should be done with truth as the goal.
 
buffalo said:
Just like they suppressed J Harlen Bretz because he dared go against the establishment. It took 50 years or so for them to realize he was right. Science should not be done by popularity, it should be done with truth as the goal.
Click to expand...
There’s a huge difference between the work of J Harlen Bretz and that of pseudoscientists like Behe. Bretz’s hypothesis was based on testable and observable evidence. Behe merely tossed an opinion into the arena without any foundation in science. Science is the pursuit of truth; the pursuit of testable and observable truth with physical evidence. What some religious persons and pseudoscientists like Behe are positing is, what they would regard as, philosophical truths. It is not scientific nor is it the proper purview of science to entertain philosophical speculations which can never be tested therefore it does not belong in any science classroom. If the Indiana Legislature wants creationism/ID to be taught then they can require schools to offer elective mythology or comparative religion courses.
 
Ghosty said:
Genetic modification through descent is hardly a controversial topic in science. We can see selective breeding, both natural and artificial, through empirical study. That is all that should be taught in public schools, IMO. Creationism, and Intelligent Design, definitely have no place as scientific studies since they aren’t subject to the scientific method.

Intelligent design is a philosophical interpretation based on scientific information, but it’s not science. Creationism can’t even claim that much as it’s simply a religious viewpoint. Neither should be taught in science classes, though perhaps intelligent design might have a place in a philosophy class, should such a thing be offered. I still thing Intelligent Design is a poor philosophy, and shouldn’t be supported by Catholics because it narrows the scope of how we view God’s causality, but it could still be presented in the proper context in school.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Code: 
 To all: Modification through descent is not controversial when discussing relatively small changes with an already completed organism. What it does not explain is how the eyes, ears, kidneys, brains, hearts, colons, sexual organs, etc, etc came to exist in the first place. Recently I heard Richard Dawkins state if you take humans back millions of generations, what you would see is something akin to a bacteria. YOU all can believe that hysterical balderdash, but count me out. At least THAT conjecture was slightly more plausible than his admission to Ben Stein that he thinks that we may have been colonized by space aliens. 
 The macro TOE is so shaky that Stephen J Gould had to invent the silly punctuated equilibrium theory. And, lizard-like creatures such as "Ida" are touted as being ancestrally human. Give me, and especially our kids a break! :banghead: Rob
 
RACJ said:
To all: Modification through descent is not controversial when discussing relatively small changes with an already completed organism. What it does not explain is how the eyes, ears, kidneys, brains, hearts, colons, sexual organs, etc, etc came to exist in the first place. Recently I heard Richard Dawkins state if you take humans back millions of generations, what you would see is something akin to a bacteria. YOU all can believe that hysterical balderdash, but count me out. At least THAT conjecture was slightly more plausible than his admission to Ben Stein that he thinks that we may have been colonized by space aliens.
The macro TOE is so shaky that Stephen J Gould had to invent the silly punctuated equilibrium theory. And, lizard-like creatures such as “Ida” are touted as being ancestrally human. Give me, and especially our kids a break! :banghead: Rob
Click to expand...
Just because it strikes you as superficially counterintuitive doesn’t mean it’s false. Many people find much of Christianity superficially counterintuitive.

And Gould didn’t invent punctuated equilibrium to address creationsists. And secondly, many, probably most, biologists aren’t too fond of punctuated equilibrium theory, making your attempt at a point rather moot. And what nonsense Richard Dawkins sputters about space aliens shouldn’t be taken as represening scientists in general (who overwhelmingly accept macroevolution); Dawkins holds a lot of views that the rest of the scientifit community probably finds embarrassing.
 
RACJ said:
To all: Modification through descent is not controversial when discussing relatively small changes with an already completed organism. What it does not explain is how the eyes, ears, kidneys, brains, hearts, colons, sexual organs, etc, etc came to exist in the first place. Recently I heard Richard Dawkins state if you take humans back millions of generations, what you would see is something akin to a bacteria. YOU all can believe that hysterical balderdash, but count me out. At least THAT conjecture was slightly more plausible than his admission to Ben Stein that he thinks that we may have been colonized by space aliens.
The macro TOE is so shaky that Stephen J Gould had to invent the silly punctuated equilibrium theory. And, lizard-like creatures such as “Ida” are touted as being ancestrally human. Give me, and especially our kids a break! :banghead: Rob
Click to expand...
So why do we share genetic material (such as DNA), which is passed on only by descent, with bacteria?
 
RACJ said:
To all: Modification through descent is not controversial when discussing relatively small changes with an already completed organism. What it does not explain is how the eyes, ears, kidneys, brains, hearts, colons, sexual organs, etc, etc came to exist in the first place.
Click to expand...
It does indeed explain how these organs gradually developed about. We’re not allowed to talk about this, but I encourage you to learn about, for example at ucmp.berkeley.edu/about/shortcourses/shortcourse12.php
 
The Indiana Department of Education has said that, if the bill becomes law, it does not plan on establishing standards for the teaching of creationism.

An interesting take on this bill is that the teaching of creationism has always been allowed in Indiana schools and at least one high school biology class already does so. The bill may be intended to provide legal cover so that the state of Indiana would help defray the cost of a court challenge rather than putting the burden solely on the school district.
indystar.com/article/20120201/NEWS05/202010320/Indiana-Senate-passes-bill-teaching-creationism?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
There’s a huge difference between the work of J Harlen Bretz and that of pseudoscientists like Behe. Bretz’s hypothesis was based on testable and observable evidence. Behe merely tossed an opinion into the arena without any foundation in science. Science is the pursuit of truth; the pursuit of testable and observable truth with physical evidence. What some religious persons and pseudoscientists like Behe are positing is, what they would regard as, philosophical truths. It is not scientific nor is it the proper purview of science to entertain philosophical speculations which can never be tested therefore it does not belong in any science classroom. If the Indiana Legislature wants creationism/ID to be taught then they can require schools to offer elective mythology or comparative religion courses.
Click to expand...
I like science because it is specific in defining and naming the “truth”. Your post 107 explained it this way. Emphasis yours. " Science is the pursuit of truth; the pursuit of testable and observable truth with physical evidence."

In order to fully grasp your comments, Please name and define the philosophical truths you referred to and the philosophical speculations. Thank you.
 
StAnastasia said:
It does indeed explain how these organs gradually developed about. We’re not allowed to talk about this, but I encourage you to learn about, for example at ucmp.berkeley.edu/about/shortcourses/shortcourse12.php
Click to expand...
No problem with the pink and white cutie. Science does a great job naming and defining living organisms. It also does a great job in understanding how living organisms live and die. In addition, science benefits humankind. Check out both Science and Nature journals.

While science can name humankind and so on 👍 it cannot address the complete human nature. This is because the human person is an unique unification of both the material *and *spiritual worlds. While the body decomposes because it has material parts, the spiritual soul lives because it does not have material parts nor did it emerge from material or physical parts.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
There’s a huge difference between the work of J Harlen Bretz and that of pseudoscientists like Behe. Bretz’s hypothesis was based on testable and observable evidence. Behe merely tossed an opinion into the arena without any foundation in science. Science is the pursuit of truth; the pursuit of testable and observable truth with physical evidence. What some religious persons and pseudoscientists like Behe are positing is, what they would regard as, philosophical truths. It is not scientific nor is it the proper purview of science to entertain philosophical speculations which can never be tested therefore it does not belong in any science classroom. If the Indiana Legislature wants creationism/ID to be taught then they can require schools to offer elective mythology or comparative religion courses.
Click to expand...
Go through this and tell me what you object to:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION HOUSE BILL NO. 1227
96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
 
Hokomai said:
So why do we share genetic material (such as DNA), which is passed on only by descent, with bacteria?
Click to expand...
The genetic piano - for a moment imagine a piano. All the keys are present, yet not are all played all the time. A tremendous amount of music can come from just 88 keys. The core conserved genes that all life has are around 500 or so. Form these the DNA language calls upon various combinations.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
For some reason I think it was more to be politically correct than it was for fear of theocracies. Up until 2010 there was a state whose constitution specifically mentioned a specific sect of Christianity.

I don’t think, for over 200 years with all this religion we were ever in danger of a theocracy.

I still wouldn’t mind if a group of people got together in a state and voted to have that state sponsor a specific religion/group of religions. If you don’t like it, leave. If Oklahomans decided they wanted their state to be Muslim, I’d pack by backs real quick and walk over to Texas.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that people would be free to simply leave if their state suddenly became a theocracy?

One of the defining features of a strong theocracy is its lack of freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top