Texas EduBoard won't put creationism in textbooks, after all

[Geilinor]

Nah. I think they would come up with something like "this is a Christian nation so only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"

I agree, "only the Creation story of the Bible should be taught!"... however I'll offer a compromise. We'll teach it, but we'll only use the Theistic-Evolution/Evolutionary-Creationist hermeneutic.... and for the sake of keeping it sciency we'll eliminate the specifically theological elements of it.

(For those that didn't get all the big words, we'll basically just teach scientific evolution).

Someone should try to convince those who oppose evolution to agree to Theistic-Evolutionary-Creation hermeneutic.

[The Emerald Legion]

But... they were wrong. And dead now because god smote them for their heresy.

That's not how it works & you know it!

The proper way it works is Science. To which the god question is irrelevant and need not be considered at all.

[Len Hyet]

So wait....Texas....do good?

Texas do good. Surprisingly.

[Terra Sector Union]

I think creationism as a concept should be taught as an open theory with no religious influences to it. But Yes, I don't want to be taught Adam and Eve or some religious scripture as an alternative for science.

Good that Texas will stick to what is fact or more plausible.

[Hurdegaryp]

I think creationism as a concept should be taught as an open theory with no religious influences to it. But Yes, I don't want to be taught Adam and Eve or some religious scripture as an alternative for science.

Good that Texas will stick to what is fact or more plausible.

Creationism is a religious concept, therefore it is impossible to teach it in the way you suggest. Theology has no place in biology.

[The Emerald Legion]

I think creationism as a concept should be taught as an open theory with no religious influences to it. But Yes, I don't want to be taught Adam and Eve or some religious scripture as an alternative for science.

Good that Texas will stick to what is fact or more plausible.

Creationism is a religious concept, therefore it is impossible to teach it in the way you suggest. Theology has no place in biology.

Not really.

"Some think that an intelligent being or race induced the abiogenesis process which led to life on earth. Others believe that abiogenesis was induced by environmental conditions alone, and not by any intelligent force."

[Farnhamia]

Creationism is a religious concept, therefore it is impossible to teach it in the way you suggest. Theology has no place in biology.

Not really.

"Some think that an intelligent being or race induced the abiogenesis process which led to life on earth. Others believe that abiogenesis was induced by environmental conditions alone, and not by any intelligent force."

Yes, but generally when we say "creationism" or "intelligent design" the idea is that a deity did it, specifically the God of Abraham and Jesus. Yes, there are those who believe what you quoted but they're a very small minority.

[Hurdegaryp]

Not really.

"Some think that an intelligent being or race induced the abiogenesis process which led to life on earth. Others believe that abiogenesis was induced by environmental conditions alone, and not by any intelligent force."

Yes, but generally when we say "creationism" or "intelligent design" the idea is that a deity did it, specifically the God of Abraham and Jesus. Yes, there are those who believe what you quoted but they're a very small minority.

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

[Snafturi]

Yes, but generally when we say "creationism" or "intelligent design" the idea is that a deity did it, specifically the God of Abraham and Jesus. Yes, there are those who believe what you quoted but they're a very small minority.

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

Or Aliens. Aliens are perfectly secular.

[Farnhamia]

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

Or Aliens. Aliens are perfectly secular.

The thing is, you don't know that. Maybe Rael and his group are here on a crusade or something.

[The yoshin empire]

Or Aliens. Aliens are perfectly secular.

The thing is, you don't know that. Maybe Rael and his group are here on a crusade or something.

Or they are checking to see if we have anyone with enough potential to become a Puella/puer magi , in other words they could be here to see if wed make good fuel.

[Snafturi]

Or Aliens. Aliens are perfectly secular.

The thing is, you don't know that. Maybe Rael and his group are here on a crusade or something.

It should be possible to look at the results of the Elohim mucking about on earth while leaving the theology to the theologists. Unless an adequate understanding of why and when is fundamental to predicting future changes or understanding past ones. Then you'd need both. That would be an interesting interaction of theology and science.

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes, but generally when we say "creationism" or "intelligent design" the idea is that a deity did it, specifically the God of Abraham and Jesus. Yes, there are those who believe what you quoted but they're a very small minority.

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

I simply enjoy defending the indefensible.

[Hurdegaryp]

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

I simply enjoy defending the indefensible.

Dude, you are in need of a hobby. If video games are not your thing, consider model trains.

[Domenic and friends]

Come on Texas! I'm disappointed.

[The Emerald Legion]

I simply enjoy defending the indefensible.

Dude, you are in need of a hobby. If video games are not your thing, consider model trains.

Model trains annoy me. Trains are supposed to be subterranean, not out on the surface blowing by peoples houses.

Also, I have a chunk of the winter months where I have no work. I have nothing but time.

[Hornesia]

I think it is bad, I wish they would at least mention creationism as a possibility.

You're right.

I agree creationism is a possibility, we all know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and Earth, before Earth has created the universe was nothing but Lasagna(blech).

After 7 days, The Flying Spaghetti Monster created Breadsticks to inhabit the earth, and those breadsticks evolved into humans. That's my interpretation of creationism, so we MUST teach it.

I disagree. Cthulhu deserves recognition.

[Terra Sector Union]

Yes, but generally when we say "creationism" or "intelligent design" the idea is that a deity did it, specifically the God of Abraham and Jesus. Yes, there are those who believe what you quoted but they're a very small minority.

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

I actually believe in a universal creator without any religious ideals. No praying, no worshiping. It's how I believe the universe works or worked. I still apply it to science though which is why I think creationism as a theory could be part of the curriculum. It just can't pander to Christianity, Islam, etc.

[Regnum Dominae]

Come on Texas! I'm disappointed.

How is this disappointing? You should be happy that Texas schools will be teaching science instead of myth.

[Aeken]

You're right.

I agree creationism is a possibility, we all know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and Earth, before Earth has created the universe was nothing but Lasagna(blech).

After 7 days, The Flying Spaghetti Monster created Breadsticks to inhabit the earth, and those breadsticks evolved into humans. That's my interpretation of creationism, so we MUST teach it.

I disagree. Cthulhu deserves recognition.

Equality for Cthulhu!

[Northwest Slobovia]

Anyway, WRT the topic, I am curious what would happen if other religious people (say, devout Hindus) demanded "equal time" for their creation myths. Would the Bible-thumpers lose interest at that point? Would they start asking for *gasp* proof of the stories which contradict their Official Myth?

They would demand proof, thus contradicting themselves and losing their strongest argument. I want to become a Hindu now just so I can do this.

It's a free country, go for it! Then move to your choice of Bible-intensive states and cause trouble with a test case.

[Liriena]

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

I actually believe in a universal creator without any religious ideals. No praying, no worshiping. It's how I believe the universe works or worked. I still apply it to science though which is why I think creationism as a theory could be part of the curriculum. It just can't pander to Christianity, Islam, etc.

The problem is that creationism is not a proper scientific theory. It has no valid body of work proving its hypothesis. In fact, creationism tends to argue that the existence of the hypothetical creator cannot be proven, which means that scientific standards cannot be applied to it.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I actually believe in a universal creator without any religious ideals. No praying, no worshiping. It's how I believe the universe works or worked. I still apply it to science though which is why I think creationism as a theory could be part of the curriculum. It just can't pander to Christianity, Islam, etc.

The problem is that creationism is not a proper scientific theory. It has no valid body of work proving its hypothesis. In fact, creationism tends to argue that the existence of the hypothetical creator cannot be proven, which means that scientific standards cannot be applied to it.

I guess that depends on how you mean "creationism". Newton's Blind Watchmaker isn't testable, and Occam's Razor cuts him down to size. Special creation -- all species of living things were created in an orgy of creation some time ago, and there's nothing new under the sun since -- is testable, and wrong.

So, TSU, what are you claiming for your "creator"?

[Ifreann]

First time I ever saw someone try to propose a more or less secular variant of creationism. It's probably a trap.

I actually believe in a universal creator without any religious ideals. No praying, no worshiping. It's how I believe the universe works or worked. I still apply it to science though which is why I think creationism as a theory could be part of the curriculum. It just can't pander to Christianity, Islam, etc.

And why, exactly, should the science curriculum include this notion of yours? What science is there support it? What scientific principles can be illustrated to young minds by its inclusion? Why should anyone give a shit about your personal beliefs?

[Terra Sector Union]

The problem is that creationism is not a proper scientific theory. It has no valid body of work proving its hypothesis. In fact, creationism tends to argue that the existence of the hypothetical creator cannot be proven, which means that scientific standards cannot be applied to it.

I guess that depends on how you mean "creationism". Newton's Blind Watchmaker isn't testable, and Occam's Razor cuts him down to size. Special creation -- all species of living things were created in an orgy of creation some time ago, and there's nothing new under the sun since -- is testable, and wrong.

So, TSU, what are you claiming for your "creator"?

When I look how life on Earth works, it's hard to say that this was all random. Whether or not, a creator has built life on Earth, there is some sort of unknown force that is sentient and has been around before humans obviously. Notice how plants are required to maintain the atmosphere on Earth so animal life is able to breathe. The process of Evolution seems to be thought-out somehow. Organisms adapting to their environment and making changes over time. It's like a computer program is what I'm saying.

It sounds a bit stupid, but I believe the creator did a lot of math to create the universe and everything works like clockwork. If everything was random, then the Solar System wouldn't work out well would it?
But see, there is something odd still. Human beings like us have come to existence. Unlike other animals, we define what we do and so far, we are able to bring ourselves out of the planet we were once nurtured in in the name of space exploration. For an odd reason, I think we are chosen to excel and advance unlike any other creature in order to achieve something. Like some sort of universal test.
I got a lot of theories on what this creator is doing and why it exists. On an atheist approach, you got the big bang that supposedly caused the existence of the universe. What was before the Big Bang? What was before God if you're theist. Trying to answer that question makes my head hurt.