Creationism growing in European schools

[Melifluous]

quote:Originally posted by Beorn

I'm afraid that was already no longer true 2½ pages ago...

Well I suppose we are masters of taking threads off topic here ...

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by romeothemonk

I have a question for the group.

Since it is apparently the feeling of a portion of the people here that science and religion must be seperated. Is this correct?

Yep - although the two must intermingle in scientific religious studies (e.g. historical bible studies)

quote:
If this is correct, are scientific discoveries by religious people invalid?

If you read my previous posts you know that I at the very least do not say that.

Scientific discoveries are valid if proper scientific methods were applied to gain them. That is the only valid cirterion, and the beliefs of the involved people do not play any role at all as long as this criterion is fulfilled.

quote:Newton, Pascal, and Mendolson were all devoutly Christian, and made monumental scientific contributions.

Exactly - and they stuck to the proper methods, too

quote: Is my science ability diminished due to my belief?

Potentially - are you able to study an issue disregarding your beliefs? If so, then your ability is not diminished. But if you feel that your religious beliefs play into your research (i.e. you will not accept facts or results that do not fit your religion), then your work will be diminished.

quote:If you think there is yelling and shouting here, I dare Killer to setup a panel discussion with 5 devout Muslims on ID vs ToE and tape it for YouTube. I would pay money to watch that.

Should I give you my bank account details? Someone must pay for my bodyguards, after all And I'd enjoy that debate......

quote:It probably comes as a shock to some that I advocate teaching both theories of ToE and ID in schools. If there were more developed other theories, I would advocate presenting them as well.

Please do not take this wrong, but did you understand what we wrote above about how ID is not a scientific theory in the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'? Or were the posts above too muddled?

quote:I have to apologize that I haven't been able to put a ton of background research into my position on this point, and I have had to lean on others, but I want to keep stressing the point that through intelligent discussion, learning occurs, information is transferred, and society benefits.

true - but such discussion requires a few things, among them the willingness of all participants to discuss issues fairly. Some people here on CDZ (not you) have used arguments not of their own that are constantly brought forth by people who clearly lack the will to debate fairly, but rather lie and cheat. That's why my posts were so harsh - I hate having the same old lies spouted again and again as the enternal truth, and never getting replies from such posters when I challange them. CFC is full of such drive-by posters on creationism, and it is a pity that this phenomenon seems to come here, too. I admire people like tubby (who admitted hat he knows too little) and Sir Eric (who spent much time informing himself) and you, simply because you stick to the debate and are willing to answer.

EDIT: and I am not talking about mauer, who would AFAI can tell never lie or cheat.

[Melifluous]

quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M

I admire people like tubby (who admitted hat he knows too little) and Sir Eric (who spent much time informing himself) and you, simply because you stick to the debate and are willing to answer.

True, I just pause in passing to make assinine remarks...

[Lt. Killer M]

mauer,

to answer your point that this is about some people calling others 'stupid':

True, there ARE stupid people, and there ARE people who call others stupid even if they aren't.
But that is not the point of the debate 'ID in school'! It is a cheap excuse used by many liars and cheats, as it is mostly not true, and where it is true it is very bad manners by the evolution supporters.


Now, I would never call you stupid for a simple reason: I have read some of your posts here and on CFC and KNOW that you are not stupid. Personally, I think that you fail in one thing, and the people you debate with fail in the same thing, usually: properly defining the terms used and the boundaries of your statements. We have to be sure that when one of us writes 'ID' or 'evolution' or 'theory' that ALL involved know exactly what he means with that term.

My experience is that people like you readily agree with me that ID is not science, not a scientific theory in natural sciences once all terms are defined properly. And they also agree with me that it should not be taught in school as a scientific theory once they understand what the term 'science' means in a school curriculum meaning. Much as I am ready to accept ID as a religious theory with it's own value as a theory in religious science! Teach it there and I am happy with it, because for religious studies it has scientific value!

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Melifluous

(...) as I see it the discussion is about whether this is something we can teach our children as being fact (as we see it)

Well, that was the intention.

quote:Originally posted by akots
I blame Matrix. He started this whole thing while knowing that no good comes to it.

Or rather "he should've known". I thought this forum existed merely out of anti-religion fundamentalists, so we could all mutually vent our gall on this article, but I forgot we have some -members too now...

quote:Originally posted by Melifluous

I do not amend any posts based on content (apart from Porn I think)

[mauer]

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

Or rather "he should've known". I thought this forum existed merely out of anti-religion fundamentalists, so we could all mutually vent our gall on this article, but I forgot we have some -members too now...

So should I replace my communist robot with the confederate flag with an image of a cowpoke in overalls in front of it?

[Matrix]

That would clarify things. I was looking for an appropriate new avatar for you when I stumbled upon this nice site. I especially like the first picture!

http://users.ixpres.com/~txcowboy/country.htm

[mauer]

LOL! I think that first picture is the governor's mansion.

[romeothemonk]

Well, Killer I have a question for you. Does not every discovery or advance replace a previous theory? Since ToE dates to ~ 1830's, that had to mean that for many years other people believed something about the way the World works.

When we discuss nuclear physics, we always start with the discover of the atom, them to the various atomic models, definitions of terms, and then progress to the next iteration of the current theory. Since the next theory is clearly shown in scientific detail to be more accurate than the previous one, it is easy for the logical mind to go to the next progression.

If I were an open-minded individual, I would have a really tough time believing that NO ONE had any idea where people came from prior to the 1830's, and we just jumped straight into ToE. If ToE is truely scientifically sound and logical, present it as a successor theory, but by definition it had to displace something.

The fact of spontaneous matter generation, whether it be physical matter, energy, or even scienctific data is to incredulous for me to put my mind around. The idea of a being that transcends the known universe is a simple and practical solution to the indestructiblity of matter and its existence in the first place.

I will not wire you money before the debate, but I would buy a DVD of the debate. With Akots, that is at least 2 customers. You may have a business venture.

[akots]

But why, there were Jean-Batiste Lamarque who made a pretty clear and concise theory of his own. Alas, it got somewhat ruined by Mendel' and the birth of genetics. However, it is somewhat included in Darwin's theory. However there are numerous other predecessors including ancient Greeks, Arabs, Persians, etc. The co-contributor towards Darwin's theory is Wallace and another Darwin (I don't think he were a relative but I just don't remember).

And the phenomenon was there to observe closely for millions of years. While natural selection is rather hard to come along in a single life time, artificial selection of domesticated plants and animals were always there, active and kicking. So, it seems to have been quite clear and broad base overall.