Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

reply to post by Kailassa


Comparing intelligent design persons to birthers is hardly apt. It seems as if you want to make evolution a conservative/liberal political debate. Why can't people ask questions about evolution, or at least about macroevolution? Has macroevolution ceased, except for rare experiments? Do we see transitional species today? And down to the most fundamental question, speaking of birth, is whether Darwinian theory is correct that the origin of man could have been done by chance and with no direction. All good questions for students to ask.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Well, the problem is that the various definitions seem to say the same thing.

Cultural perception to most people when you say we got here by evolution, think, formation of one celled creature to Homo Sapient.

...yes, that's part of evolution. We are one of many, many products of evolution. But the formation of the first cell isn't a part of evolution. It's called 'abiogenesis', it's an entirely separate field of study.

The term 'chemical evolution' isn't scientific. There's 'molecular evolution', the colloquial term for the progression of molecular scales. There's nucleosynthesis, the formation of more complex atoms. And there's abiogenesis, the formation of life from organic chemicals.

All of them operate under mechanisms that are hardly related to evolutionary mechanisms.

They are not thinking about adaptation or genetic drift or even mutations.

...those are evolution. The only way to go from single cell to homo sapiens over 3.5 billions of years is adaptation, genetic drift, and mutations as well as sexual and environmental selection.

And the fact that they aren't thinking about those speaks volumes about the education system and who is controlling the discourse.

Those are the only necessary things required for a single-celled organism to evolve into a complex animal organism over 3.5 billion years.

Some of the biological things that take place under the different definitions of evolution are very broad and obviously scientifically correct, of that there is no dispute.

Then where is the dispute?

It's not semantics? You are very interesting! How can human life that developed from a single cell not be evolution? Also, what, if there is much more to it? Do you think there has been enough time for man to have evolved from an ape? I am one that does believe in evolution and creationism, but NOT organized religion. I know there is more to us than what we see, and I believe this will be discovered through science. I'm all for science and spirituality merging and it will. If there is an intelligent consciousness contained in everything, then we are only a part of the whole and everything is connected.

Most people do go on blind faith their whole lives and never actually experience their full potential. I understand what the OP is saying. Students are only given two choices in a public school. They aren't given the choice of believing in both, because Christians are taught to look for a savior outside themselves when it's we that's are our own savior. I don't know why I enter these threads, but I can tell you that we have the ability to know and do much more and to use more of our own brain capacity. I think this knowledge has been lost and probably hidden for a reason and that is to control man. I don't at all mind an atheist's views, but I would like them to know they are capable of creating whatever they choose by their own beliefs. One thing we can be sure of is that there is consciousness and anyone operating at a higher consciousness and without fear can go through life with ease. I see the science and spirituality behind it all and it's spoon bending real....literally. I don't believe it matters what a person's beliefs are, but if they actually knew what they were capable of, they'd be astounded.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

So your saying most people that believe in evolution might not believe in abiogenesis?

Not at all. I am saying that life is a pre-existing condition for evolution and that evolution is silent on how that pre-condition arose.

You cannot "not believe in abiogenesis". Life exists. It started somehow, whether by the rather quaint notion of lightening hitting a puddle or supernatural creation, it happened. Abiogenesis is the study of how it got started, pure and simple. Clearly it is meaningless to discuss the changes occurring in life over time if there is no life to begin with, but the Theory of Evolution addresses change in life over time.That is all. People who understand evolution as fact have many different ideas about abiogenesis, there is no consensus established (at least not yet).

This, of course, does create a bubble for 'the God of the Gaps' to occupy and indeed the 'God did it' hypothesis is clung to by some folks trying to make sense of their beliefs in a scientific world that is fast running out of room for their God. The problem is that supernatural creation is not something that can be scientifically tested, therefore it cannot be incorporated into a scientific theory.

Once again, the Theory of Evolution makes no attempt to explain how non-life became life. It explains how life changes over time. In doing so, it is explaining observed facts and predicting certain observations and outcomes that can be expected in the future. It is completely silent on the events in the past that led to non-life to become life. That it did is obvious however, and the Theory of Evolution deals with what happens after that.

Likewise, Hypothetical Models of Abiogenesis make no attempt to explain what happens to a life form once it exists. To be a viable as a candidate theory, it must however make predictions about how that life would evolve into modern life forms. We know that all life on the planet shares a rather small set of fundamental characteristics that must have been established very early in the history of life. For example, if a model shows how silicon based life could have formed, it would fail as a viable model because silicon based life would not have evolved to carbon based life.

Any particular model only tries to explain how it could happen under a specific set of pre-biotic conditions. There are many abiogenesis hypotheses or models, one of which is Supernatural Creation. However, creation is not testable under scientific conditions, and so cannot be dealt with by scientists, simple as that. Furthermore, once a model has been shown to be a viable explanation of how life could have begun under a set of pre-biotic conditions, then that particular "God of the Gaps" instance is no longer necessary.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Can you answer this question then, since you are in agreement with the theory of evolution, do you support a theory within abiogenesis? A simple yes or no will suffice.

A simple yes or no will not suffice, because there is no theory of abiogenesis yet to support or reject. There are only many hypotheses.

I am personally quite appreciative of the work of Dr. Jack Szostak (Nobel Prize winner for his work on telomeres), but his is not the only work going on. A review of the Wikipedia article I linked in the post above should provide you with a starting point for exploration.

I have posted a video summary of Dr. Szostak's work earlier in this thread, but repeat for your convenience. Once again, the meat of his ideas begins at about the 2:40 mark.

So we have a combination's of theories and hypothesis for the school curriculum then.

1) How energy transferred into all the matter in the Universe. (Cosmological theory/ Big Bang)
2) How that non-living matter developed into life on our planet. (Hypothesis of Abiogenesis)
3) How existing life developed. (Theory of Evolution)

All a teacher has to say after teaching these things is say that at least 4 billion people (according to the statistics) also believe in a divine all powerful creator. But the school isn't for teaching faith, it's for science, which always changes with time, faith is your parents area, and for you to personally decide for yourself.

Originally posted by Raiment
Comparing intelligent design persons to birthers is hardly apt. It seems as if you want to make evolution a conservative/liberal political debate.

I thought people questioned that because they were concerned. Are you saying they only question it because they are conservatives?
If so, does that mean people questioning evolution are similar, doing it because they feel that's what "their side" has to do?

Why can't people ask questions about evolution, or at least about macroevolution?

Didn't you read my post? I discussed how questioning, when combined with research has led to added knowledge of evolution.
A characteristic of science is that there is always room for questions.
Science is not like religious dogma.

Has macroevolution ceased, except for rare experiments?

Why would it have? We see change all about us.

Do you need to personally see an elephant grow wings to understand that creatures are always evolving?

Evolution by Religious Selection: Mexican Cavefish Develop Resistance to Toxin

Since before the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the New World, the Zoque people of southern Mexico would venture each year during the Easter season deep into the sulfuric cave Cueva del Azufre to implore their deities for a bountiful rain season. As part of the annual ritual, they release into the cave's waters a distinctive, leaf-bound paste made of lime and the ground-up root of the barbasco plant, a natural fish toxin. . . .

However, a team of researchers . . . has discovered that some of these fish have managed not only to develop a resistance to the plant's powerful toxin, but also to pass on their tolerant genes to their offspring, enabling them to survive in the face of otherwise certain death for their non-evolved brethren.

Do we see transitional species today?

Life equals change.
If a species is not transitional, it's most likely going extinct.
If it took a million years to make a clay pot, and you spent a lifetime watching the potter, would you be able to see the clay was transitioning into a pot?

And down to the most fundamental question, speaking of birth, is whether Darwinian theory is correct that the origin of man could have been done by chance and with no direction.

Evolution is not "Darwinian Theory". Calling it that these days, when our understanding of evolution is based on the work of many scientists, is just the creationist's childish effort to minimise its importance.
- Like the AGW deniers do when trying to make out AGW is the creation of Al Gore.

You can't to debate whether "the origin of man could have been done by chance" with scientists because that's not what scientists believe. You need to study evolution properly to understand what scientists believe happened. Evolution is powered by chance events, but evolution itself is not random chance, it's natural selection.

If two people fall in a deserted pool and only one can swim, is it random chance if he's the one that survives?

All good questions for students to ask.

No.

If you do come up with a good question I'll let you know.

reply to post by Raiment

Let's just put high heels and lipstick on a chimp, and a microphone in her hand...

...and right-wing Republicans will vote in droves for the candidates she endorses.

...and anyone who ever had common sense questions about evolution will now sit down and be quiet.

Which commonsense questions about evolution would those be, then?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So we have a combination's of theories and hypothesis for the school curriculum then.

1) How energy transferred into all the matter in the Universe. (Cosmological theory/ Big Bang)
2) How that non-living matter developed into life on our planet. (Hypothesis of Abiogenesis)
3) How existing life developed. (Theory of Evolution)

All a teacher has to say after teaching these things is say that at least 4 billion people (according to the statistics) also believe in a divine all powerful creator. But the school isn't for teaching faith, it's for science, which always changes with time, faith is your parents area, and for you to personally decide for yourself.

If "the school isn't for teaching faith ', then why are you pushing for science teachers to bring it up?

Science class is not social studies or religion class.
Teaching what people believe is not appropriate for a science class.

Believing in a creator is irrelevant to most people's understanding of evolution. It's only a few small Christian sects that take the Biblical account literally. I've never met a creationist Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian or Jew yet, so stop trying to exagerate the numbers who support the teaching of creationism.

reply to post by Kailassa

I thought people questioned that because they were concerned. Are you saying they only question it because they are conservatives?

If so, does that mean people questioning evolution are similar, doing it because they feel that's what "their side" has to do?

for pointing this out.

Poor Raiment has unintentionally revealed a truth most creationists (and 'birthers') would prefer to keep hidden. Namely, that they are right-wing reactionaries with an agenda.

I'm not saying every ATS member who believes in a created world is a right-wing political agitator. Most of them are simple dupes. But there have been, and remain, members on this site who are here purely in order to promote the gospel of creationism. How do I know this? Well, when someone starts their OP with 'Now I believe in evolution, but I do have a few questions, such as...' and then proceeds to rattle off some well-rehearsed creationist arguments 'supported' by sources such as allaboutscience.com (it isn't about science) or answersingenesis, it's a bit hard to believe they're not following an agenda.

reply to post by Astyanax


Kindly read the thread. I was replying to a post that implied questions about evolution is equivalent to a birther, that was off topic. Why all are all these right-wing labels being thrown about? I am a new poster, did I introduce myself?

I read books too (surprise!) so my source is not allaboutsience.com; you have that wrong.

Of course evolution takes place over a long period of time; apparently scientists are able to claim they found obvious transitional fossils, though. They also found samples where evolution happened so quickly it cannot be explained to this day, by Gould or others. It seems as if some posters want to have their answer both ways (1) we cannot see transitional examples of the pot the clay is being formed into (2) oh wait, here are examples.

reply to post by Kailassa

Believing in a creator is irrelevant to most people's understanding of evolution. It's only a few small Christian sects that take the Biblical account literally. I've never met a creationist Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian or Jew yet, so stop trying to exagerate the numbers who support the teaching of creationism.

That applies to young earth creationists who defy science by believing in the universe was created in 6 literal days.
Myself I am an old earth/universe creationist that believes in a sliding scale of time meaning Genesis 1:1 encompasses billions of years and each creative day was unknown millions of years long but each one got shorter.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Believing in a creator is irrelevant to most people's understanding of evolution. It's only a few small Christian sects that take the Biblical account literally. I've never met a creationist Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian or Jew yet, so stop trying to exaggerate the numbers who support the teaching of creationism.

That applies to young earth creationists who defy science by believing in the universe was created in 6 literal days.
Myself I am an old earth/universe creationist that believes in a sliding scale of time meaning Genesis 1:1 encompasses billions of years and each creative day was unknown millions of years long but each one got shorter.

Ok, so you have even fewer people believing your version of creation than I expected.

You previously expressed unease over your misconception that teaching evolution meant teaching theories within theories within theories.
However you want biology students taught about creation, when there are hundreds of myths about how that took place. Amongst Christians there is:
- belief in a six day creation and a 6,000 year old earth,
- belief in a six day creation and a 10,000 year old earth,
- belief in creation in the Biblical order but with vastly extended days, where "day" means a certain length of time,
- belief in creation in the Biblical order but with vastly extended days, where "day" means a longer lenth of time but the days gradually shorten on a sliding scale,
- belief that both accounts of creation describe the same event,
- belief that two separate creation events are described in Genesis, and
- belief that God created life in the manner of evolution but made a hash of it and had to keep interfering to make it all work, and
- belief that God set it all in motion perfectly so it happened exactly as scientists are discovering.

So that's rather a lot of creation beliefs just among Christians.

As America originally belonged to native Americans, they should have the right to equal time with Christians, or, in Australia, Aboriginal Australians should have that right. The native Aussies had a different creation account for every tribe, so that more than doubles the number of creation beliefs, and I'd bet the same goes for native Americans.

Our countries now have immigrants from all over, and all citizens have equal rights, so if we teach the Christian and the native beliefs, we must teach the beliefs of all the other religions of children in our schools too.

Here's a list of just a few of them:
Creation Myths

Once you start teaching creationist beliefs, it would take years to cover them all.

Or if you just want to inform the kids that some people believe life was created, why bother when, according to your figures, 2/3 of the population believe that already, so kids are hardly going to be unaware that some people hold that belief?



I have to wonder, should we also teach children about evil talking snakes?
Should we teach them about Eve eating the apple which most Christians believe is what happened, despite no apple being mentioned?
Should we teach children that women deserve to experience great pain in childbirth, as that's their God-given punishment for the "apple" incident?

Then perhaps we should give children a list of all the people various religious texts say should be killed.

The more I think about it, the more certain I am I don't want to let religion get a foot in the door in government-funded schools.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

All a teacher has to say after teaching these things is say that at least 4 billion people (according to the statistics) also believe in a divine all powerful creator. But the school isn't for teaching faith, it's for science, which always changes with time, faith is your parents area, and for you to personally decide for yourself.

If "the school isn't for teaching faith ', then why are you pushing for science teachers to bring it up?

Believing in a creator is irrelevant to most people's understanding of evolution. It's only a few small Christian sects that take the Biblical account literally. I've never met a creationist Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian or Jew yet, so stop trying to exagerate the numbers who support the teaching of creationism.

You must have missed my post where I said I did not see how intelligent design could be taught in school, at least without perfecting a theory. From what I read, all intelligent design writers are not creationists. One or two are atheists or agnostics. I am a Taoist.

Originally posted by Raiment
You must have missed my post where I said I did not see how intelligent design could be taught in school, at least without perfecting a theory.

And how do you "perfect a theory" when there are no predictions that can be made on the basis of it and your only "proof" is belief, religious texts and the fact that scientists are not completely omniscient?

From what I read, all intelligent design writers are not creationists. One or two are atheists or agnostics.

Could you please tell us the names of some atheist and agnostic creationists?
- Preferably with proof they are atheist or agnostic.

Why would someone who does not believe in a creator want children to be taught there is a creator?

I am a Taoist.

That's nice. We can add the Taoist creation myth to the mix if we start teaching creationism.

The Taoist Story of Creation

In the beginning of time, there was only chaos. The elements and gases of the heavens and earth freely mingled, and the organizing principle was dormant. It lay dormant somewhere inside this elemental cosmos, awaiting the right moment to begin the transformation. The shape of this primeval mass was something like an egg.

For 18,000 years the universe remained in this state, until the incubation was finally complete, and the egg hatched. Then the heavens and the earth came into existence. The lighter, most pure substances floated upward and became the heavens. These elements were named yang. The heavier, more impure substances descended and became the earth. These were named yin.

From the same forces, a third, the giant Pan Ku, was born as well. As he grew, his sheer size divided the heavens and the earth. The giant lived for another 18,000 years. With the assistance of four creatures, a tortoise, a phoenix, a dragon, and a unicorn, he labored daily to mold the earth. Together they created the world as we know it today.

When Pan Ku finally died, his body was transformed. His left eye became the sun and his right eye became the moon. His blood became the rivers and oceans, his breath became the wind, his sweat became the rain, and his voice became the thunder. His flesh became the soil, and from the fleas living on his body, the human race sprang into being. In this way, the stage was set for the pageant of history to unfold.

So when kids complain that they don't want to believe they are just one more species of primate, we can present them with the alternative belief that they are just one more species of flea.

reply to post by Raiment

Kindly read the thread. I was replying to a post that implied questions about evolution is equivalent to a birther, that was off topic. Why all are all these right-wing labels being thrown about? I am a new poster, did I introduce myself?

I read the thread. The right-wing allegation-slinging was started by you, not by Kailassa.

I read books too (surprise!) so my source is not allaboutsience.com; you have that wrong.

Read the thread. That wasn't a reference to you either. I was talking about people who start threads. Have you started any?

You must have missed my post where I said I did not see how intelligent design could be taught in school

Kailassa was replying to BlueJay, not to you.

Why this eagerness to grab at every passing cap and try it on to see if it fits?

Of course evolution takes place over a long period of time; apparently scientists are able to claim they found obvious transitional fossils, though., etc., etc...

The evolution 'debate' only exists in the heads of the ignorant.

I do not seek out and argue with ignorant people. If you seek instruction, I shall be happy to instruct you, provided you maintain the respect due to someone who knows more than you do. If you grow troublesome and persistent, you shall receive nothing.

I trust that's Taoist enough for you; doubtless you recognize the source.

Props to the OP for this thread. I have felt this way for a long time, fortunately when I biology in college I didn't have any self righteous nuts in my class trying make their weak point against evolution vs creation. Religion is based on faith, science is based on the scientific method and faith based arguments are pointless in a science class room.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Raiment

 

Kindly read the thread. I was replying to a post that implied questions about evolution is equivalent to a birther, that was off topic. Why all are all these right-wing labels being thrown about? I am a new poster, did I introduce myself?

I read the thread. The right-wing allegation-slinging was started by you, not by Kailassa.

I read books too (surprise!) so my source is not allaboutsience.com; you have that wrong.

Read the thread. That wasn't a reference to you either. I was talking about people who start threads. Have you started any?

You must have missed my post where I said I did not see how intelligent design could be taught in school

Kailassa was replying to BlueJay, not to you.

Why this eagerness to grab at every passing cap and try it on to see if it fits?

Of course evolution takes place over a long period of time; apparently scientists are able to claim they found obvious transitional fossils, though., etc., etc...

The evolution 'debate' only exists in the heads of the ignorant.

I do not seek out and argue with ignorant people. If you seek instruction, I shall be happy to instruct you, provided you maintain the respect due to someone who knows more than you do. If you grow troublesome and persistent, you shall receive nothing.

I trust that's Taoist enough for you; doubtless you recognize the source.

edit on 10/11/10 by Astyanax because: of necessary admonition

Kailassa (not I) said in the post right above that creationists were right-wingers with an agenda. I did not even realize I was a member of a conspiracy! You seem to be saying that there is no debate because the side that questions macro-evolution- that I see many do not accept as a word, even - is too ignorant to engage with.. What is there to debate then. Is the debate because someone believes that intelligent design will be taught in the school in place of science? That sounds paranoid to me. Back on topic, what do you instruct in?

reply to post by Raiment


It's actually quite on-point to say that it's really pointless to engage with ID/Creationist believers. It's not science. It has no more place in the science room than a lecture on hydrodynamics has in a Church.

Creationism has no scientific merit to speak of, ID is just a repackaging of creationism, therefore there's no point in putting religion in science class.

reply to post by Raiment

Kailassa (not I) said in the post right above that creationists were right-wingers with an agenda.

Right. You just made me waste ten minutes reading all Kailassa's posts in the thread. He doesn't say that anywhere. He doesn't say anything remotely like it. You are a creationist and you are not telling the truth.

But let's be charitable--perhaps you are merely confused. It was another poster who connected right-wingers and creationists, not Kailassa.

You seem to be saying that there is no debate because the side that questions macro-evolution- that I see many do not accept as a word, even - is too ignorant to engage with.. What is there to debate then?

Whether religion has a place in the science classroom or not. See thread title.

Is the debate because someone believes that intelligent design will be taught in the school in place of science?

See thread title.

That sounds paranoid to me.

Yet you seemed happy to consider the possibility in your first post on the thread. What changed?

Also, were you sleeping when various American school boards were debating whether or not to introduce 'intelligent' 'design' as a subject in the school science curriculum? Paranoid, my adenoids!

Back on topic, what do you instruct in?

What? You didn't get the reference? Inspect Hexagram Four of the I Ching, fellow Taoist, and welcome to ATS.

Seeing change all about us is not the same as seeing evolution above the species level.
Call it neo-Darwinism, same questions.
Your link is interesting but does not demonstrate a current transitional entity or change above the species or order level that we can observe.
If two people fall into a pool, and the person who could not swim managed to have children before drowning, he will be the one to pass on his genes even if they were faulty ones. Interesting.