Creationism being banned?

[Scribbles]

I am definately new to starting threads so bear with me..

The dangers of creationism in education
<a href="URL">http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm#P16_91[/url]

Council of Europe: Ban Creationism since it may become "Threat to Human Rights" and Democracy
<a href="URL">http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110105.html[/url]

Creationism Must Be Eradicated
<a href="URL">http://watchingamerica.com/elespectador000006.shtml[/url]



How do you feel about this?

[Scribbles]

Oh no..
Where did my url's go? do i use html here?

well here it goes again..

1.The dangers of creationism in education

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm#P16_91

2.Council of Europe: Ban Creationism since it may become "Threat to Human Rights" and Democracy

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07110105.html

3.Creationism Must Be Eradicated (El Espectador, Colombia)

http://watchingamerica.com/elespectador000006.shtml

Sorry i need help..

I also wanted to add this one..

Human race will 'split into two different species'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=489653&in_page_id=1965

So If i'm understanding correctly.. They are going to Ban The FACT that God created the world, and all forms of life.. And turn to evolution which is going to possibly teach that in 1000 yrs man will be then evolving into a troll? haha..

[Altarboy]

What a bunch of crap!  I counted more ad hominem and strawman arguments in the first link than I can count with my fingers.  And since when doesn't a challenge and critique of a theory amount to an attack on science as a whole?  What a pathetic attempt to scare people.

[Scribbles]

you can see my links?
they are invisible to me..

i think i'm going to cry.. 

I posted those 3 times.. twice here and once right before my pc rebooted itself..

 

[SUPERMAN]

Don't worry, we'll figure it out.   

[Scribbles]

It seems i can only see the url highlighted if I hit the reply button..

New things take time right? haha
Patience is a virtue? and all that jazz..

[SUPERMAN]

Are you saying you can't see the link when you preview it?

[Acumen]

I've run into the issue of whether Creationism is real science.  The discussion usually begins with an initial focus on Creationism as a religious belief masquerading as a science.  Eventually, the discussion moves toward what science really is.  And this is where it tends to get messy.

Science, as an enterprise, is not easy to define.  Most people see it as "something that scientists do."  And scientists are defined as "those who have an expertise and practice in science."  With this type of begging the question, the discussions move around in circles until people get irritable with each other.

Ultimately, the true definition of science is too difficult to articulate by most posters, so they skirt around it using some sort of ad hominem or poisoning the well techniques, which only demeans others and really accomplishes nothing.

[Scribbles]

Are you saying you can't see the link when you preview it?

Yes superman i can only see the link when i hit the reply button..maybe it's my pc.. :0 that's ok though.. no big deal..

[Acumen]

 Elluminati complained that he couldn't see who he was posting to.  It only said newbie next to the post.  I had the same problem previewing the boards yesterday from work.  I wonder if it has something to do with the computer settings?

[Scribbles]

Probably 

I can only see newbie to when i'm, reading posts.
I have been hitting reply and sometimes reading it that way so i can see who's posting.
Although you have a picture and superman does as well so now at least i see the picture and know who it is.

[SUPERMAN]

We'll look into it.  Acumen ran into a similar problem from his work computer.  Thorolf is our computer wiz, I'm sure he will address it.

In regards to pictures, I recommend that all of our members have pictures next to their handle to prevent any confusion.

[Scribbles]

that's a good idea..

[metis]

Creationism and i.d. really are not science.  Science is based on evidence obtained from using the scientific method in order to negate bias as much as possible.  Creationism and i.d., on the other hand, are religious concepts that are not based on unbiased and verifiable evidence.  When one uses the term "intelligent design", the implication is that there is a "designer", and I don't think there's really anyone who doesn't realize who this supposedly refers to. 

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Metis (vern),

If science is grounded in human reason and logic, couldn't they postulate an intelligent designer if something exhibits intricacy?

[metis]

Metis (vern),

If science is grounded in human reason and logic, couldn't they postulate an intelligent designer if something exhibits intricacy?

Science is more based on evidence than reason and logic, although they obviously play major parts as well.  Intricacy does not necessarily exhibit a "designer".  Intricacy may well just exhibit intricacy.  But we also have to remember that intricacy is ever-changing and is a relative term to boot. 

At this point, we have no scientific evidence for i.d.  Reason and logic don't help because these tend to be subjective-- what is reasonable and logical to you may not be at all as such to me, or vice-verso. 

Shalom,
Vern         

[Acumen]

Vern,

Science is more based on evidence than reason and logic, although they obviously play major parts as well. 

I don't think a claim like that can be verified, although I understand your emphasis.  For instance, the evaluation of whether evidence is good or bad is based upon logic and reason.  There is no way around it.

Intricacy does not necessarily exhibit a "designer".  Intricacy may well just exhibit intricacy.  

And that is a presupposition that favors evolution.  We know that intricate things have been designed by intelligent designers.  We can be sure because we know where computers, cameras, and x-ray machines come from.  However, we can't be sure that intricate things come from, well, nature.  We can presume it because our naturalistic tendancies favor it and because it fits well with the theory of evolution, but it's a presumption based upon the philosophy of naturalism.

At this point, we have no scientific evidence for i.d.  Reason and logic don't help because these tend to be subjective-- what is reasonable and logical to you may not be at all as such to me, or vice-verso. 

First, we would have to define what is evidence and what isn't.  THAT seems like it could very well subjective.  For instance, whatever the scientific community determines is evidence is indeed evidence, and that is that. 

Second, reason and logic are objective truths.  For example, 2 plus 2 is always 4.  A circle cannot be a square at the same time.  If a crow is defined as an exclusively black bird, there can be no white crows.  These are immutable truths and virtually the only thing we finite humans can depend upon for learning.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

That is because the atheistic scientific community is hostile towards theism and has decided to make up their own rules as to what "evidence" is.  It's quite pathetic.

It's been a while since we've been on the same side; and it feels good!  I agree that the scientific community is hostile toward theism.  And I believe that it colors the way they define what qualifies as evidence.

-Acumen

[metis]

That is because the atheistic scientific community is hostile towards theism and has decided to make up their own rules as to what "evidence" is.  It's quite pathetic.

Generally speaking, this is not true.  Many scientists are theists or agnostics.  Throughout most of my life I was a theist.

There is a plethora of evidence and I find it absolutely amazing and arrogant that so called "science" would distance themselves from their origin of logic and reason and rather adopt density.

Such as...?

In order to exhibit this evidence, one needs to find evidence for a deity or deities.  Since most people readily admit that these are believed in by faith and not evidence, then what evidence can be supplied?  How would one even know, for example, if there's only one deity or a multitude of deities?  Where's the evidence? 

Oh well, they will all be dead soon from global warming.....that is, if "hype" can actually kill.

According to those that specialize in that area, there's a 95% certainty that global warming is indeed taking place.  Scientific American has been running articles in almost every issue within the last year+, and I personally have to drift towards those who specialize in these matters rather than relying on politicians' take on it.



Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

For instance, the evaluation of whether evidence is good or bad is based upon logic and reason.  There is no way around it.

To a certain extent, yes.  But logic and reason need evidence for their foundation otherwise they merely become speculation.  For example, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  No matter how much logic or reason we may attempt to use, what evidence are they going to be based on? 

We know that intricate things have been designed by intelligent designers.

That's a presumption.  Can you supply evidence that the above is entirely true across the board?  When we have more time, I certainly wouldn't mind dealing with this in some detail. 

Second, reason and logic are objective truths.  For example, 2 plus 2 is always 4.  A circle cannot be a square at the same time.  If a crow is defined as an exclusively black bird, there can be no white crows.  These are immutable truths and virtually the only thing we finite humans can depend upon for learning.

Logic and reason don't always relate to "objective truths".  For example, most half-way decent philosophers use logic and reason, and yet we may disagree with their philosophy.  And what about theology?  In all religions we find logic and reason used extensively, and yet most theists will tend to reject all religions but their own.  Do you use logic and reason to derive your religious beliefs?  I would assume so.  However, does that mean you have the "objective truth"?  You might think as such, but there will be many theists and non-theists who'll tend to disagree with you on many points.



Shalom,
Vern