1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Creation Science House Bill 3826

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Skwim, Feb 7, 2019.

  1. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,240
    Ratings:
    +8,795
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    .

    "Some state legislators try to push Creationism into science classrooms by using coded language. For example, they say they want schools to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of various scientific ideas. But South Carolina Republican Reps. Dwight A. Loftis and James Mikell “Mike” Burns never got that memo.

    They’re the sponsors of House Bill 3826, which would inject “Creation science” into an elective comparative religions class.

    In addition to the provisions of item (1), a school district may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science as part of the course content. The course would have to be “neutral, objective, and balanced”… except for the part where the Christian creation myth is forced into the curriculum. The same bill would also force schools to put “In God We Trust” signs in the building. Because, at this point, why the hell not? The National Center for Science Education notes that the Creationism clause would undoubtedly violate the law:

    The teaching of creation science in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional — a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — by a federal court in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)."​
    source

    .​
     
  2. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    19,433
    Ratings:
    +6,942
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Please tell me it's not the Ken Ham type of creation 'science'.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    18,130
    Ratings:
    +9,686
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Someone really needs to teach these people what a scientific theory is. The most common answer I get when I ask creationists if they have a test that could refute their idea is "Why would I want to do that?" .
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Sorry, just trying to sort the NONSENSE
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2,382
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Religion:
    I hope there is something out there that is smarter than me.
    I spent over 30 years in that culture, and being out of it is like not banging my head on an anvil any more.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Ratings:
    +419
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    Why should evolution be taught but not intelligent design? Intelligent Design is a stronger theory then the naturalistic materialism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,587
    Ratings:
    +359
    Religion:
    Christian
    In a comparative religion class they should also refer to the religious assumptions of naturalism and Darwinism to be complete

    In every other academic pursuit studying a variety of the significant views is considered good educaiton so of course one should go 'where the evidence leads' and not exclude creationary views
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    18,130
    Ratings:
    +9,686
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And what "religious assumptions" would those be?

    Creationists should never use the word "assumption" since they never can support that claim.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Sorry, just trying to sort the NONSENSE
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2,382
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Religion:
    I hope there is something out there that is smarter than me.

    Often Christian thought, just isn't. Well thought out that is. Having spent over 30 years in the Christian "cult", I've seen them make broad harsh judgements on very little data, and to be really uncompassionate about it. It is far easier to condemn than to helpfully counsel.

    As to explaining our very long history, the Bible just doesn't and to say it does is just ingenuous. It would be fun if Trex existed when the ancients did, but...No.
     
  9. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,416
    Ratings:
    +2,553
    Religion:
    None
    ID can not legitimately even be called theory.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Ratings:
    +419
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    The data for design is overwhelming.
     
  11. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Ratings:
    +419
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    Not only is it a ligitamate theory, its a better one then the alternatives. The problem is the politics in science, certain people having unrational bias who are in power making the rules.
     
  12. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,882
    Ratings:
    +4,916
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Have you not read about Kitzmiller v Dover.

    You should do, as a matter of urgency, it's even on YouTube

     
  13. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,737
    Ratings:
    +3,284
    Care to give an example or two?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,737
    Ratings:
    +3,284
    And what is the bias regarding evolutionary theory?
     
  15. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,240
    Ratings:
    +8,795
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    For one thing, evolution is taught in science classes because it's grounded in science, and ID is not science by any stretch of the word (It's a religious belief that some have tried to disguise and promote as science), so it doesn't qualify for inclusion.

    First of all, as has been pointed out, ID (creationism in disguise) is not a theory. Secondly, neither is naturalistic materialism. Naturalistic materialism is a world view. A system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, and that the so-called supernatural does not exist, or at least, does not impinge on the workings of the natural world.


    .

    .
     
    #15 Skwim, Feb 8, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  16. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,457
    Ratings:
    +2,767
    Probably the bigger question is why would any school teach ID creationism in the first place? By what standard would ID creationism be taught in science classes, but not geocentrism or astrology?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,240
    Ratings:
    +8,795
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Thanks for posting the video. I saw it some time ago, and just watched it again. It really points up the duplicity of the creationist movement, but having seen this kind of unreasoned defense of Christian belief before, it's not surprising.

    .
     
    #17 Skwim, Feb 8, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  18. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,240
    Ratings:
    +8,795
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    No question that design appears in nature

    [​IMG] [​IMG] upload_2019-2-8_12-49-14.jpeg


    But it certainly doesn't suggest a need for a designer.

    .
     
    #18 Skwim, Feb 8, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Ratings:
    +419
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    When you say grounded in science, do you mean its grounded in reality or grounded in acceptance by the mainstream of science?

    And why do you say ID is not science but religion? But spontaneous abiogenesis is science and not religion?

    And how did you determine that?

    Ok, now you just confused me. First you said evolution is grounded in science, now you say naturalistic materialism is not a theory (or science)?

    What do you mean?
     
  20. Jollybear

    Jollybear Hey

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,350
    Ratings:
    +419
    Religion:
    Christian/mystic
    Heres an exerpt from this article > Treasures of snow - creation.com

    "But crystals are nothing like a living cell. Formed by the withdrawal of heat from water, they are dead structures that contain no more information than is in their component parts, the water molecules. Life forms, on the other hand, came into existence, evolutionists believe, through the addition of heat energy to some postulated primordial soup. Not only are these processes very different, but life requires the emergence of new information (a code) in order to take over the functions of organization and reproduction of a cell. There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms."

    As far as the snail and the flower go, they have DNA, the dreaded code of information that is your BIGGEST nightmare come true, lol.
     
Loading...