The world is only 6 thousand years old ...

[kallipolis]

You seem to be under the impression that there is "free speech" in American schools. There isn't. There is a whole long list of what can be taught, and what can't be taught, what can be read and what can't already in place. So, sorry, you're just wrong.

What you are advocating for is the constitutional fig leaf used by right wing fundamentalist wing-nuts in pursuit of theocracy, who have the EXPLICIT goal of denying everyone else freedom of everything except doing what they're told.

Creationism isn't an "opinion." it is an ERROR and willful ignorance on the part of people with a political agenda. IF in Greece you insist on teaching science classes with fables and lies that is your affair, but the rest of us are going to object. if you want to put the fables and lies in a theology class go for it, but pretending it in any way is equivalent to evolutionary theory in a science class is just making a stupid ass of ones' self.

The goal of Creationism is to spread control through religion, not to exercise free speech.

Even an opinion, that I may determine is erroneous should be heard...for I, also stand guilty of having erred...and will, again.

What of you...?

 

[kallipolis]

No, the issue being discussed is what can be taught in a science classroom and by what standards are those permissions granted. Hint: it isn't the demand to exercise free speech that decides those topics.

Those who pay their taxes have as much right as you, and me to insist that their children should also be taught Creationist theory, alongside Evolutionary theory despite you, and me recognising that there is no merit to Creationist theories...

The principle of freedom of speech should also extend to all whose opinions, views, ideologies, philosophy is repugnant to me....

 

[kallipolis]

Exactly correct. And of course the extent of that "right to be taught" is exactly nil, when it comes to beliefs as opposed to knowledge.

Beliefs can be preached, but only knowledge can be taught.

Beliefs are part of the teaching curriculum....for science is continually updating its understandings...even Professor Einstein understood that his theories would be questioned....as indeed they have....and corrected....in the light of advancing knowledge.

 

[kallipolis]

I don't care if this is taught in religious schools, but my tax dollars are not going to pay for religious indoctrination in public schools.

All taxpayers should be heard...not just those who aspire to dictate....believing themselves to represent progress...the pinnacle of scientific greatness...

 

[kallipolis]

Smetimes I believe we're going backwards in thinking. I went to public school in NJ in the 1950s, & Catholic Sunday school. Both the teachers & the nuns knew that earth was way older than 6000 years old, & the Darwin was right.

Never was anything even approaching the ignorance of creationism taught , or even mentioned.

The majority of Christians outside the United States reject Creationist theories...with traditional Christianity reminding its followers that the creator's, creating powers are beyond human understanding.....

 

[lambdaboy]

Creationist's are ignorant. They want us to believe in some all knowing God who gave us a brain. They ignore science. If the world is 6000 years old then where do dinosaurs fit in. Religion equals ignorance!

46% of the idiots in the U.S. believe in creation. My curiosity is after Kane killed able did he f*ck his mom or was there a sister for this weird family. Always my favourite fairy tale. God creates us in his image but not quite close to smart and then puts a tree of knowledge and tells them do not go there.

 

[kallipolis]

Creationist's are ignorant. They want us to believe in some all knowing God who gave us a brain. They ignore science. If the world is 6000 years old then where do dinosaurs fit in. Religion equals ignorance!

46% of the idiots in the U.S. believe in creation. My curiosity is after Kane killed able did he f*ck his mom or was there a sister for this weird family. Always my favourite fairy tale. God creates us in his image but not quite close to smart and then puts a tree of knowledge and tells them do not go there.

So is most, if not all of the human race...now, what else is new?

 

[bankside]

Beliefs are part of the teaching curriculum....for science is continually updating its understandings...even Professor Einstein understood that his theories would be questioned....as indeed they have....and corrected....in the light of advancing knowledge.

No; refining a body of knowledge has nothing to do with "beliefs." You are conflating two very different concepts. It is no more acceptable to present students with the view that creationist nonsense is plausible, than to tell them Lamarckian inheritance is plausible. Two ideas, one rooted in myth; the other in rational thought, and both demonstrably wrong.

It is perhaps not an explanation of the concept which is unethical but withholding the explanation of why it is wrong. The creationist curriculum withholds.

 

[kallipolis]

You, and me may well argue that Creationist theory is nonsense....here, we are in total agreement...

Refining a body of knowledge, such as Evolutionary Theory is a process...still ongoing...still being refined, and expanded since Charles Darwin proposed his hypothesis...in this sense it can be argued by Creationists that Evolutionary Theory remains...for some....a belief rather than an unassailable fact of life....

This paragraph might savour your appetite to read more from an article that does nothing to change my beliefs:

http://mohamedghilan.com/2012/02/26/some-problems-with-evolution/

It should be pointed out here that just because a theory has strong predictive power for observations, this does not necessarily make it true. Einstein said it best when he said, “it is the theory that determines what we observe”. This is explained through Thomas Kuhn’s acknowledgment of how much of the data generated in science is “theory-laden”, which refers to the fact that when scientists design an experiment, they are guided by their theories in mind. If an experiment is designed based on a theory, the observations cannot be truly considered objective, because the design of the theory-based experiment can drive the observations to confirm the theory itself. In logic, this is a form of fallacy called circular reasoning.

 

[mightbe]

Something currently being refined by data, mathematics, inquiry, skepticism and method is lightyears ahead of ancient, abridged Jewish folk-literature. The two are not equals. Because one small subset of humanity believes (and that's all it is) otherwise doesn't make it so. Creationists reject the entire body of evidence against their claims for no reason other that it being against their claims. Sorry to burst your bubble, but taking measurements and analyzing an unidentified object takes you much further than just guessing where it came from.

The Jewish figured it out long ago and have since done away with any of that nonsense. American Christianity has been increasingly isolating itself from the world (not all sects, but many of the fastest-growing ones within the US), and have decided that it's their place to interpret a book they didn't write. You don't hear a rabbi reading from Revelation or an imam interpreting Nehemiah. Mainstream Judaism discredits creationist thought, and most attribute it to ignorance or allegory. Why many Christians can't figure this out I don't know, but I think the only decent usages of the Old Testament are context and poetry.

Aside from being the backstory, Christians ought to have no place in (most of) its interpretation. It's the Jews' book. Take their word for it. They wrote it.

 

[mightbe]

http://mohamedghilan.com/2012/02/26/some-problems-with-evolution/

No. Numbers aren't subjective. Observations are only used in science to provide basic meaning for the numbers and have no bearing on the empirical evidence, which is the meat-and-potatoes of a theory. Data isn't driven by observations, data is driven by numbers. Plain and simple, without experimental data a theory is only an unsupported hypothesis, or worse, supported by anecdotal evidence (which is lambasted in the scientific community).

 

[zoltanspawn]

I supposed most of us on this forum would be panspermians.

 

[Telstra]

You, and me may well argue that Creationist theory is nonsense....here, we are in total agreement...

Refining a body of knowledge, such as Evolutionary Theory is a process...still ongoing...still being refined, and expanded since Charles Darwin proposed his hypothesis...in this sense it can be argued by Creationists that Evolutionary Theory remains...for some....a belief rather than an unassailable fact of life....

This paragraph might savour your appetite to read more from an article that does nothing to change my beliefs:

http://mohamedghilan.com/2012/02/26/some-problems-with-evolution/

I find this image funny:
His views says it all "Some Problems with Evolution"

 

[kallipolis]

I supposed most of us on this forum would be panspermians.

I recall Stephen Hawking addressing this idea, some years ago...even, further back Fred Hoyle proposed similar thoughts...all very sci fi.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I recall Stephen Hawking addressing this idea, some years ago...even, further back Fred Hoyle proposed similar thoughts...all very sci fi.

Vulgar elementary school joke...thud.

 

[Kulindahr]

Freedom to teach lies to school kids ???

Until some 500 years ago most of the people in Europe believed that the world is flat...that belief did not make the world flat....

Your right to disagree with an opinion ensures that all opinions are heard even, Creationist theories that you reject as nonsense.

Kalli, that's bogus. Telly is right -- teaching kids that the earth is 6k years old is lying to them, period.

You can have your own opinion, but are not entitled to your own facts. No one who believes the earth is 6k years old should be allowed in front of a classroom unless he can be counted on to keep his mouth zipped.

 

[Kulindahr]

Creationist theories have as much right to be taught, as do other beliefs....

Not in a science class. And they shouldn't be called "theories"; in philosophical terms it's properly called "speculation" or "conjecture".

I'm a Creationist because science took me that way -- but it still doesn't belong in a science class.

 

[Kulindahr]

When we began imposing limits on freedom of expression we have decided that we know better, than others....that's a slippery slope heading dangerously towards totalitarian rule....no thanks....for I will make the choice....not some invisible face, deciding which films,or books I can watch/read, and which films/books I cannot watch/read....censorship leads to greater evils.....remember, until some forty years ago medical science persuaded society that homosexuality was a mental health issue....the science of that time was the accepted wisdom of the day....some science....some wisdom....

You're playing words games. In a science classroom, there's no room for "freedom of expression", any more than in a history classroom or a mathematics one.

What you're talking about can go in a "history of science" class.

 

[bankside]

Not in a science class. And they shouldn't be called "theories"; in philosophical terms it's properly called "speculation" or "conjecture".

I'm a Creationist because science took me that way -- but it still doesn't belong in a science class.

If science took you that way then it belongs in a science class. Either as a current theory, or as an example of a supplanted theory now understood to be incorrect.

 

[Kulindahr]

Freedom of expression permits all opinions to be heard...not just those that satisfies ones own understandings....

No, it doesn't. And even if it did, it has no place in a classroom.

Or would you seriously allow a "teacher" in front of a physical education class who taught that the flesh is an affliction and kids should eat only barely enough to keep them alive, for the sake of their "spiritual health"?