C'mon, let me hear that dirty word: Evolution!

Oh no sir, we're not teaching evolution, we're teaching 'biological changes over time'.

Is it just me, or is this awfully silly? Then again, given the apparent intelligence of the average creationist, the fact that there's three additional words in there might confuse them enough to shut the hell up, even though the content's still exactly the same. *sigh*

Don''t forget abstinence-only sex ed! Because that curbs unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, since everyone will abstain!

It''s amazing that any of these people were smart enough to ""insert tab A into slot B"" to even have kids.

Then again, given the apparent intelligence of the average creationist,

Should I even bother pointing out that this doesn''t fit with the notions of tolerance or useful debate?

If you want to attack someone as stupid, why not the politically correct people who came up with the idea? An idea, I must add, that doesn''t please any of the parties involved.

Don''t forget abstinence-only sex ed! Because that curbs unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, since everyone will abstain!

Were you not just saying that you didn''t want people inflicting their morals on you? Oh I see. It only works one way.

<-- Starts to laugh at GA... Then remembers he''s in AL where all biology textbooks carry ""evolution disclaimers"" inside the cover, and where countless thousands flocked to in order to worship a monument that should have been golden and shaped like a calf - and mindfully keeps his mouth shut

/excessively verbose

Gorack, while I admire your fairness (something I try to aspire to), I have a hard time being fair to creation scientists.

Don''t forget abstinence-only sex ed! Because that curbs unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, since everyone will abstain!

I am wholly against dumbing down students by removing accepted scientific terminology, like ""evolution"" from the classroom. This has nothing to do with the reality that handing out condoms and pushing sex education contributed toincreasedteenage STD and pregnancy rates, until abstinence education was returned to the curriculum...

"Gorack" wrote:

Should I even bother pointing out that this doesn''t fit with the notions of tolerance or useful debate?

Hell, I fell prey, too. For me, it''s hard to imagine people that think that abstinence-only sex education does what they want it to do. And if they do think that that is best, I can''t imagine them being able to walk and chew bubble gum concurrently ;).

Wrong, I know. I suppose ALG''s feeling is the same towards creationists, and he let it show through disdain which is wrong, too. I somewhat sympathize, since it''s hard to imagine -- with the seemingly incredible amounts of supporting theories for evolution -- that people point at creationism as the most likely theory. It seems astounding to evolutionists... as it must to creationists I imagine.

But you''re right, nobody''s helped by the negative comments. I''ll try to tone down, personally.

Wow, we all jumped on the bandwagon at the same time. I hate being the third guy to say the same thing, so I offer this edit instead:

Orangutan finger nails!

There, no one said that.

Folks, I don''t mind abstinence education. I mind abstinence-only.

This has nothing to do with the reality that handing out condoms and pushing sex education contributed to increased teenage STD and pregnancy rates, until abstinence education was returned to the curriculum

Pull out your statistics, I''ll pull out mine. Enough people study enough things that stats are damned near meaningless, since they can go either way depending on the biases of the researchers. To me, closing your eyes to the drives of teenagers and trying to tell them that abstinence is the only way -- and never having them know the way to protect themselves if they do try it out -- is harmful.

Were you not just saying that you didn''t want people inflicting their morals on you? Oh I see. It only works one way.

How do you figure? I''m not asking for inflicting my morals. There''s two topics: removing evolution from textbooks, which is religious folks trying to remove something disagreeable to their beliefs from scientific discussion (read: them imposing their beliefs on others) and the other being removing discussion of other forms of protection in sex education (read: same thing). How is that me imposing my morals?

If we''re going to debate abstinence only, some start a new thread.

To me, closing your eyes to the drives of teenagers and trying to tell them that abstinence is the only way -- and never having them know the way to protect themselves if they do try it out -- is harmful.

Nobody says this. What they do say, is that abstinence is the onlysureway to avoid the problems we are talking about... And I don''t know what study you could be talking about. From the mid 60''s through just about a decade ago, teenage pregnancy rates and STDs went through the roof, coinciding with ever-increasing spending on sex ed and surrender to the idea that ""well, they''re going to do it anyway."" Once the backlash from social conservatives brought back abstinence programs, these numbers started dropping.

"Gorack" wrote:
Then again, given the apparent intelligence of the average creationist,

Should I even bother pointing out that this doesn''t fit with the notions of tolerance or useful debate?

If you want to attack someone as stupid, why not the politically correct people who came up with the idea? An idea, I must add, that doesn''t please any of the parties involved.

To my shame, I must admit I have little tolerance for abject idiocy, which I consider creationism to be.

I''ll readily agree that the one who came with this *is* more than a bit daft too. Or at the very least damned spineless.

Wrong, I know. I suppose ALG''s feeling is the same towards creationists, and he let it show through disdain which is wrong, too. I somewhat sympathize, since it''s hard to imagine -- with the seemingly incredible amounts of supporting theories for evolution -- that people point at creationism as the most likely theory. It seems astounding to evolutionists... as it must to creationists I imagine.

You know, it''s not so much rejecting evolution I mind. It *is* just a theory after all, even though it''s about as substantiated as it can be without some kind of observed instance of it (which isn''t going to happen, considering the timeframes involved). Scepticism can be accepted, especially if they haven''t read up on things. It''s that ''the earth is 10000 years old'' bullsh*t. It makes me want to dump all the accumulated volumes recording evidence from all the sciences that the earth is really, really old on them, while bashing their thick skulls with a fossilized dinosaur bone. There have been animals around for long enough that the ground they''ve died in has turned to stone. This does not happen overnight.

They reject all the accumulated, verifyable experiences of people and instead choose to believe the literal truth of some tribe''s creation myth. It''s enough to make me cry, man.

It makes me want to dump all the accumulated volumes recording evidence from all the sciences that the earth is really, really old on them

Even Phrenology?

You sure have got weird people high on administrative ladder.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Nobody says this. What they do say, is that abstinence is the onlysureway to avoid the problems we are talking about... And I don''t know what study you could be talking about. From the mid 60''s through just about a decade ago, teenage pregnancy rates and STDs went through the roof, coinciding with ever-increasing spending on sex ed and surrender to the idea that ""well, they''re going to do it anyway."" Once the backlash from social conservatives brought back abstinence programs, these numbers started dropping.

Between 1995 and 1996, the national teen pregnancy rate fell 4 percent, from 101.1 to 97.3 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19. This drop contributed to a 17 percent decline since the rate peaked in 1990. Eighty percent of this decline is a result of improved contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers, and another 20 percent is attributable to increased abstinence.

Source: ""Teen Pregnancy: Progress Meets Politics."" by Rebekah Saul. (1999). The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy.

People sure seem determined to hijack this thread.

I''m happy to see that you use the correct scientific term for evolution ALG. You have no idea how many times I was accused of ignorance when I challenged teachers and professors who made statements like ""Evolution is a fact"". I used all the eloquence at my disposal to try to explain that the term ""theory"" denotes a scientific idea that is used for making predictions as in General Theory of Relativity not ""something that isn''t proven"" like they seemed to think. Maybe that is why I haven''t been overly impressed with the intelligence of evolutionists myself.

Not that I want to come off as a centrist ""idiot"", but is it possible that the answer to Creationism vs. Evolution lies somewhere in the middle?

Evolution is a fact, Gorack.

New thread on abstinence to come...

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

You know, it''s not so much rejecting evolution I mind. It *is* just a theory after all, even though it''s about as substantiated as it can be without some kind of observed instance of it (which isn''t going to happen, considering the timeframes involved). Scepticism can be accepted, especially if they haven''t read up on things. It''s that ''the earth is 10000 years old'' bullsh*t. It makes me want to dump all the accumulated volumes recording evidence from all the sciences that the earth is really, really old on them, while bashing their thick skulls with a fossilized dinosaur bone. There have been animals around for long enough that the ground they''ve died in has turned to stone. This does not happen overnight.

Alright, let me present a hypothetical scenario for you, ALG:

1) You believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent god who created not just the universe, but all of it''s laws and properties, such as physics, chemistry, etc.

2) You believe that said god is able to perform any act they will, as they are in dominion over all of creation.

Okay, so there''s our base principles defining your concept of your god.

Given that, let''s say some scientist comes up to you with evidence that the world is older than what your beliefs state. ""This bone is more than 10,000 years old, so you''re wrong, aha!""

Alright, now, who are you going to believe: that this scientist is absolutely correct, that the presence of this bone which is allegedly over 10,000 years old disproves your belief in your god, or that it''s possible that either the scientist''s ability to measure the age of that bone is suspect or that the bone itself was placed into the ground during the creation of the world by your god?

The point is, Creationists believe in a god who is able to defy the ""laws"" of nature; given that, of course they aren''t going to accept the ""proof"" of science! That''s just as absurd to them as you find their beliefs to be in the face of your own beliefs. (And yes, belief in science is still a belief, just a belief in logic/science as opposed to faith/mysticism).

Personally, I used to be a creationist. I still have a hard time finding my place between my definite belief in the universe being created by God, but the question of whether it was done in seven days, or done over a period of millions of years like scientific research indicates.

Regardless, I don''t understand how believing in Creation negates a belief that evolution is real as well. I''ve always believed that evolution is a natural process that''s alive and well.

Did we come from monkeys? I don''t know. Heck, our immune system is more like mice, and genetically we''re closer to something else than apes (I can''t remember what it was, but it was something like sheep). Maybe we originated from sloths, who knows?

The point is, ALG, that this:

They reject all the accumulated, verifyable experiences of people and instead choose to believe the literal truth of some tribe''s creation myth. It''s enough to make me cry, man.

is just as ridiculous as you think they are. Let''s try rephrasing your quote, shall we?

""ALG rejects all the accumulated, verifyable experiences of people and instead chooses to believe the literal truth of some scientists'' theories. It''s enough to make me cry, man.""

See how easy it is to reverse the accusation? Just because you don''t agree with people doesn''t mean you have to belittle them. So they don''t find your theories as believable as theirs. Big deal. Move along, nothing to see here, so on and so forth.

*yawn*

"Farscry" wrote:

""ALG rejects all the accumulated, verifyable experiences of people and instead chooses to believe the literal truth of some scientists'' theories. It''s enough to make me cry, man.""

See how easy it is to reverse the accusation?

But that''s just it... it doesn''t reverse. How does one verify creationist theory? At what accumulated knowledge can the creationists point?

Some day it might be scientifically proven that Darwin was a nitwit, utterly incorrect in his theories. But hopefully it will be based on research and verifiable claims, not by essentially waving hands and saying that that doesn''t fit into their worldview.

I understand not teaching creationist theory in school. I understand why people find evolution more scientifically consistent. What I don''t understand is why so many people assigned to teach the subject have so little clue about scientific terminology, and wind up sounding shrill and dogmatic. If it is science then that is how it should be taught.

"ColdForged" wrote:

How does one verify creationist theory? At what accumulated knowledge can the creationists point?

The accumulated knowledge of those who have handed down said beliefs.

But I suppose it''s easier to just say that ~200 years of scientific theory is proof enough to discount a few thousand years of religious faith. Just because faith is mystical (it is, that I admit) doesn''t mean it''s automatically false next to the cold rationalistic dogma of science.

And no, I''m not stating that Christian faith is necessarily thousands of years old; I''m talking about the basic core elements of belief in a divine origin of the world.

Yes, I know; ""but duh, people thought the world was round just a few hundred years ago!""

So what? Many of those people were also scientists, and look how correct they turned out to be, eh? I don''t recall the Bible saying the world was flat, for example.

My point in this thread isn''t to disprove science, or to state ""Evolution is the tool of SATAN!"" My point is that I am sick of people on either side of the religion/science debate belittling the others. It''s particularly irksome to me, since I sorta straddle the line between the two and have many friends among both schools of thought.

So yeah; claim it''s wrong all you want. Big deal. But to make it out that they (meaning either side, depending on which side you place your massaging bucket-seat beads) believe what they do out of stupid ignorance is rather arrogant and elitist in my opinion.

"Farscry" wrote:
"ColdForged" wrote:

How does one verify creationist theory? At what accumulated knowledge can the creationists point?

The accumulated knowledge of those who have handed down said beliefs.

But I suppose it''s easier to just say that ~200 years of scientific theory is proof enough to discount a few thousand years of religious faith. Just because faith is mystical (it is, that I admit) doesn''t mean it''s automatically false next to the cold rationalistic dogma of science.

Hijack Alert!:
""And now for something completely different...or not""
Havent we seen something similar with sharia law discussions? Change science factor to human liberties factor and it boils down to the same principles - faith over-ruling more recent developments.

/hijack mode

For the record, here''s what I have an objection to, since these comments are directed at people like me who give creationism the consideration that it might be true:

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

...given the apparent intelligence of the average creationist...

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

...abject idiocy, which I consider creationism to be.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

It''s that ''the earth is 10000 years old'' bullsh*t.
...
They reject all the accumulated, verifyable experiences of people and instead choose to believe the literal truth of some tribe''s creation myth.

Now tell me, considering that I believe that divine creation played a role in the origin of the world, should I then think that having ALG call me an abject idiot subscribing to a myth is somehow not directly insulting?

I just wanted to be clear on what point I''m objecting to anything in this thread.

I have nothing against teaching evolution in schools; they''re teaching science, and as best as science can currently estimate, evolution is a primary part of the explanation.

I have nothing against people putting their faith in science. There''s enough evidence that indicates a level of truth through scientific research that it''s easy to believe in the discoveries made there.

I have nothing personally against ALG, or his faith in the rationale of logical deductions based on the scientific method.

Sure, I could just as easily call him an abject idiot for believing in what science says, considering how pretty much every scientific truth discovered throughout history has been subsequently disproven by later findings. Some scientific truths of the past were simply laughable. What''s to say that most of our current scientific knowledge won''t be the laughingstock of the future?

But I don''t say those things. I, at least, have respect for other people and the things they choose to believe, instead of harboring some deep-seated need to ridicule someone (or better yet, a large and historically significant group of people) because I don''t understand how they can believe in what they do.

Am I a southern Bible-thumping tent-revival zealot? No. And there''s nothing wrong with those who are. I only have a problem with people when they insist on belittling those whose beliefs run contrary to their own.

Did ALG strike a nerve? Hell yeah. I''m an educated man, and I think long and hard about things, especially when science and faith seem like they butt heads. I love science, and am a knowledge-seeker by heart. It''s important to me to resolve any conflicts between my faith and the scientific knowledge that so intrigues me.

So how does the fact that I believe there''s far more to our universe than ""scientific fact"" make me a thick-skulled idiot? Because that''s exactly what ALG has so emphatically insisted in this thread.

"Most" wrote:

""And now for something completely different...or not""
Havent we seen something similar with sharia law discussions? Change science factor to human liberties factor and it boils down to the same principles - faith over-ruling more recent developments.

One important difference: though there are some fanatical loonies, most creationists aren''t going to have you executed or sent to prison because you refuse to believe in their religious views.

Under Sharia law, you have people being punished for religious rules they don''t necessarily believe in. Quite a significant difference, if you ask me.

1) You believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent god who created not just the universe, but all of it''s laws and properties, such as physics, chemistry, etc.

2) You believe that said god is able to perform any act they will, as they are in dominion over all of creation.

...

Alright, now, who are you going to believe: that this scientist is absolutely correct, that the presence of this bone which is allegedly over 10,000 years old disproves your belief in your god, or that it''s possible that either the scientist''s ability to measure the age of that bone is suspect or that the bone itself was placed into the ground during the creation of the world by your god?

But this makes no sense. How does the the fact that the bone is older than 10.000 years deny the existance of god? It''s just means that you cannot take genesis as factual account. How does science disprove that belief in God at all? It doesn''t. It can''t. It can only disprove the bible as factual account, which still leaves it valid as an allegory.

As for God creating those bones, that''s absurd. Or disturbing. To quote Bill Hicks:
Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. f*ckin'' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:

""Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha.""

[mimes God burying fossils]

""I am God, I am a prankster.""

""I am killing Me.""

is just as ridiculous as you think they are. Let''s try rephrasing your quote, shall we?

""ALG rejects all the accumulated, verifyable experiences of people and instead chooses to believe the literal truth of some scientists'' theories. It''s enough to make me cry, man.""

...

The accumulated knowledge of those who have handed down said beliefs.

But I suppose it''s easier to just say that ~200 years of scientific theory is proof enough to discount a few thousand years of religious faith. Just because faith is mystical (it is, that I admit) doesn''t mean it''s automatically false next to the cold rationalistic dogma of science.

And no, I''m not stating that Christian faith is necessarily thousands of years old; I''m talking about the basic core elements of belief in a divine origin of the world.

But see, faith is not verifyable. Faith is not knowledge, per definition. Unless they had a first-hand witness to creation they neglected to mention, all they have is stories and oral traditions passed down and eventually committed to paper. We on the other hand have examined the world, and drawn conclusions based on the facts we''ve unearthed. We''ve something to actually base our account of things on. It''s possible that they''re wrong on in some respects, and if evidence to that effect is uncovered, they will be refined. That''s science for you. (Which isn''t dogmatic; it doesn''t need to be. A dogmatic scientist isn''t a real scientist. *Faith* is dogmatic.) And again, it doesn''t discount a belief in the divine origin of the world, since it can''t say anything about the *reason*, only the *process*.

Yes, I know; ""but duh, people thought the world was round just a few hundred years ago!""

I''ll assume you meant flat.

Some people believed this, yes. But only those who weren''t educated, or let their faith get in the way of their thinking. Aristotle had deduced that the Earth was round based on actual observations of phenomena, such as ships disappearing hull first over the horizon and that the earth''s shadow on the moon is round, and this knowledge was readily availible to scholars. And considering the reverence Christian scholars had for him, I doubt the belief was that widespread for any greater duration of time even among them. It seems like a modern day myth to me, designed to make us feel good about how much more clever we are.

Have I been less than nice about this? Yes. Am I ashamed of this? Not at all. Usually I do try to be respectful of other people''s beliefs, but when such sloppy thinking is in evidence and all people can muster in opposition tends to boil down to ''Lalli lalli, I''m not listening, I don''t want to believe this.'', I lose my patience.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

I''ll assume you meant flat.

D''OH! Yes, I meant that, but sleepy Farscry = many mistakes in writing.

*edit* Just to add; I work graveyard shift, hence why I''m here posting all night long even though I''m sleepy. */edit*

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

Have I been less than nice about this? Yes. Am I ashamed of this? Not at all. Usually I do try to be respectful of other people''s beliefs, but when such sloppy thinking is in evidence and all people can muster in opposition tends to boil down to ''Lalli lalli, I''m not listening, I don''t want to believe this.'', I lose my patience.

As I''ve stated repeatedly in my posts, faith in creationism (especially literal 7 days making the world less than 10k years ago creationism) relies on a more mystical belief than in logic. As such, yes, the opposition to scientific arguments has to essentially consist of ""I don''t want to believe that.""

So what? All I''m trying to say is that there''s a difference between ""I can''t possibly agree with that"" and ""you''re an idiot.""

I try to utilize the former out of simple decency.

I usually go for decency too, but when they start to affect what people get to learn in school, I get pissed off.

Especially when I can''t percieve any damage to their perception of God being done.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

I usually go for decency too, but when they start to affect what people get to learn in school, I get pissed off.

Especially when I can''t percieve any damage to their perception of God being done.

Gotcha.

Note that I pointed out up above that I have no problem with teaching evolution in school. If you''re teaching science, then you should be teaching science, not religion.

I am a firm supporter of secular education, as it''s a common ground for society to work from. Since everyone has different views and beliefs, it''s important to have something that can be fairly impartial as an educational basis.

Heck, as you even pointed out, a healthy dose of skepticism on everybody''s part is healthy. That''s part of the scientific method; seek alternatives and test them against what''s known.

Personally, I think those Alabama politically-correct-gone-awry administrators are going too far in trying to pander to the vocal minority.

I sense a hug!

This has been a bit more fun of a discussion, I like your moderate tone there, Farscry. Of course, like you said, you''re more middle of the road between the two not a... what was it... ""southern Bible-thumping tent-revival zealot"" so I shouldn''t be surprised. Doesn''t mean I can''t be appreciative though ;).