Creationism in Public Schools

[Katganistan]

I disagree. I'm Catholic, yet that has very little to do with what I decide where others are involved. It gives me a moral set to work within, but I am still very much for birth control, abortion, physics, carbon dating, et cetera.

People don't need religion to be good people or ethical, but being religious does not mean you need to become a dumbass who sticks their fingers in their ears, closes their eyes, and goes LA LA LA NOT LISTENING TO SCIENCE.

Take a look at any map of which US states are more religious.

Now look at which states elected the climate-change-denialist anti-vaxxer Trump.

Notice any pattern?

You, as an individual, being an exception, proves nothing. The pattern is what matters.

What does that have to do with scientists? You're the one who posits that one cannot be religious and a scientist, that you can't compartmentalize. That's false. Why? Because many of the scientists who contributed to our understanding of how the world works WERE religious.

Are you about to say that every person who lives in those states are scientists?
No?

But you want to know scientists who were religious and contributed to our understanding of the world?

Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution.
Isaac Newton.
Albert Einstein.
Galileo.
Marie Curie (though she lost faith later).

You know who else?
Copernicus.
Kepler.
Bacon.

Not to mention the ancient Greeks who gave us geometry and maths, and Muslim scientists who gave us maths and medicines as well.

So, given my set has actual scientists in it rather than a large random set that numbers who knows how many non-scientists and who knows how many non-religious people and who knows how many religious people that believe in science but have school boards that don't as proof that scientists can't be religious and still scientists, I think it's your assertion that doesn't prove anything.

[Katganistan]

Homeschooling is illegal now.

Where? It's legal in all 50 of the United States. I don't agree with it, but it's not been outlawed here.

I meant it in a sort of tongue-in-cheek thing.

Fixed the mal-nested tags.

[Geneviev]

I can at least sympathise with Old Earth creationists. At least they acknowledge the age of the Earth as it is. Young Earth is just going full retard.

That's kind of offensive. Also, what do you mean with old earth creationists? Intelligent design?

Separation of church and state also means separation of church and school.

But if we really must teach creationism then we should teach all creation myths from all the major religions not just Christianity.

And, if we are, we must state that they are not factual at all.

I mean, for god's sake, the Christian God created the Earth in 7 days, The Iroquois Creation Myth has this chick and some animals putting dirt on a turtle, etc

Six days, actually.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Six days, actually.

OK, yeah. It was six. Doesn't make it less dumb.

I can at least sympathise with Old Earth creationists. At least they acknowledge the age of the Earth as it is. Young Earth is just going full retard.

That's kind of offensive.

Yeah, comparing the mentally disabled to Creationists is a insult to the mentally disabled.

[Tombradyonia]

Take a look at any map of which US states are more religious.

Now look at which states elected the climate-change-denialist anti-vaxxer Trump.

Notice any pattern?

You, as an individual, being an exception, proves nothing. The pattern is what matters.

What does that have to do with scientists? You're the one who posits that one cannot be religious and a scientist, that you can't compartmentalize. That's false. Why? Because many of the scientists who contributed to our understanding of how the world works WERE religious.

Are you about to say that every person who lives in those states are scientists?
No?

But you want to know scientists who were religious and contributed to our understanding of the world?

Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution.
Isaac Newton.
Albert Einstein.
Galileo.
Marie Curie (though she lost faith later).

You know who else?
Copernicus.
Kepler.
Bacon.

Not to mention the ancient Greeks who gave us geometry and maths, and Muslim scientists who gave us maths and medicines as well.

So, given my set has actual scientists in it rather than a large random set that numbers who knows how many non-scientists and who knows how many non-religious people and who knows how many religious people that believe in science but have school boards that don't as proof that scientists can't be religious and still scientists, I think it's your assertion that doesn't prove anything.

Back in a time when the church held a virtual monopoly on "scientific research" one had to pretend to be religious, give it at least lip service in order to be able to research with proper facilities. And there were times when there was the implicit threat of the inquisition against those in positions of influence who dared to question certain widely held beliefs. Galileo was put on trial by the inquisition for daring to espouse a heliocentric view of our solar system rather than the church's supported earth centric idea. He was even convicted of heresy. I'm sure he became very cautious afterwards as to not to offend the 'church'.

Did Einstein believe in a 'god' or 'gods'? The question has a complicated answer but it can be summarized as: not really.
https://www.learnreligions.com/albert-einstein-quotations-249858

Religionists try to gain credibility for their nonsensical beliefs by pointing at famous scientists, but the claims quite often hold up as well as the bible itself, which is not at all.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You're the one who posits that one cannot be religious and a scientist

Show me where I said this. I'll wait.

[Tekania]

I can at least sympathise with Old Earth creationists. At least they acknowledge the age of the Earth as it is. Young Earth is just going full retard.

That's kind of offensive. Also, what do you mean with old earth creationists? Intelligent design?

Old Earth Creationist is a term which encompasses adherents to any of the old Earth creation theologies. As far as Christian Creation Theologies would go that would be covering Day-Age Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Evolutionary Creationism and Theistic Evolution. All of which hold to an "old" Earth in various degrees.

"Intelligent Design" isn't a creation theology. It's a term (specifically a doctrine) used in various creation theologies that differ depending on what particular creation theology one is talking about. Young Earth Creationists along with Day Agers and Progressive Creationists use the term to avoid accepting natural processes and insert miracles. Progressive and additionally Evolutionary Creationists use it to posit a meaning of direction in observed natural processes. Members of groups that attempt to push "Intelligent Design" as if it's a scientific theory such as the Discovery Institute are composed of people who hold to Day-Age and Progressive creation theologies. Which differ slightly from Young Earth Creationists such as is pushed by ICR (though ICR has no qualms about using the work of members of the Discovery Institute when it suits their agenda). There is a large divide between "Intelligent Design" as a doctrine in Evolutionary Creationism and "Intelligent Design" as a doctrine in Day-Age Creationism and Progressive creationism. The later use it to effectively deny looking into natural processes of varying degrees so as to insert magic; whereas the former use it merely as a connection between their faith and the natural processes observed.

For your own benefit, if you're planning on getting into discussions of creationism and evolution you really should know the common creationist theologies that would become part of the discussion. "Creation Theology" is not a single unified thing. There are multiple schools of thought in creation theology just in the Christian Religion. This is generally also why I am not keen on "Creationism" being taught in public schools. "Creationism" is not a monolith. Yet the people who want to push it into schools treat it as if it is because the people who push it are basically not concerned with anything but forcing their religious belief into the public school classroom.

[Europa Undivided]

What does that have to do with scientists? You're the one who posits that one cannot be religious and a scientist, that you can't compartmentalize. That's false. Why? Because many of the scientists who contributed to our understanding of how the world works WERE religious.

Are you about to say that every person who lives in those states are scientists?
No?

But you want to know scientists who were religious and contributed to our understanding of the world?

Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution.
Isaac Newton.
Albert Einstein.
Galileo.
Marie Curie (though she lost faith later).

You know who else?
Copernicus.
Kepler.
Bacon.

Not to mention the ancient Greeks who gave us geometry and maths, and Muslim scientists who gave us maths and medicines as well.

So, given my set has actual scientists in it rather than a large random set that numbers who knows how many non-scientists and who knows how many non-religious people and who knows how many religious people that believe in science but have school boards that don't as proof that scientists can't be religious and still scientists, I think it's your assertion that doesn't prove anything.

Back in a time when the church held a virtual monopoly on "scientific research" one had to pretend to be religious, give it at least lip service in order to be able to research with proper facilities. And there were times when there was the implicit threat of the inquisition against those in positions of influence who dared to question certain widely held beliefs. Galileo was put on trial by the inquisition for daring to espouse a heliocentric view of our solar system rather than the church's supported earth centric idea. He was even convicted of heresy. I'm sure he became very cautious afterwards as to not to offend the 'church'.

Did Einstein believe in a 'god' or 'gods'? The question has a complicated answer but it can be summarized as: not really.
https://www.learnreligions.com/albert-einstein-quotations-249858

Religionists try to gain credibility for their nonsensical beliefs by pointing at famous scientists, but the claims quite often hold up as well as the bible itself, which is not at all.

So all scientists back then were actually closet atheists?

Nice joke, you can now apply for a comedy bar.

[Godular]

Back in a time when the church held a virtual monopoly on "scientific research" one had to pretend to be religious, give it at least lip service in order to be able to research with proper facilities. And there were times when there was the implicit threat of the inquisition against those in positions of influence who dared to question certain widely held beliefs. Galileo was put on trial by the inquisition for daring to espouse a heliocentric view of our solar system rather than the church's supported earth centric idea. He was even convicted of heresy. I'm sure he became very cautious afterwards as to not to offend the 'church'.

Did Einstein believe in a 'god' or 'gods'? The question has a complicated answer but it can be summarized as: not really.
https://www.learnreligions.com/albert-einstein-quotations-249858

Religionists try to gain credibility for their nonsensical beliefs by pointing at famous scientists, but the claims quite often hold up as well as the bible itself, which is not at all.

So all scientists back then were actually closet atheists?

Nice joke, you can now apply for a comedy bar.

The point in that case is that those individuals made their discoveries largely in spite of their faith, rather than because of it.

[Nolo gap]

only if it is non-abrahamic creationism, like hindu, buddhist or indiginous.

[Europa Undivided]

So all scientists back then were actually closet atheists?

Nice joke, you can now apply for a comedy bar.

The point in that case is that those individuals made their discoveries largely in spite of their faith, rather than because of it.

Or maybe it just happened that they had a faith and were working in science.

Or some of them sought out the laws of the universe due to a belief in a Lawgiver, nah?

[Godular]

The point in that case is that those individuals made their discoveries largely in spite of their faith, rather than because of it.

Or maybe it just happened that they had a faith and were working in science.

Or some of them sought out the laws of the universe due to a belief in a Lawgiver, nah?

Nah. The church had some rather extreme responses to their established narrative being disrupted. Copernicus waited until his deathbed to publish his findings just to avoid that particular problem. Attempting to claim that such discoveries were due to or in some way motivated by their faith are ill-considered at best. The fact that the church was essentially the only source of advanced education in Europe at the time isn't a testament to the virtues of Christianity so much as an indication to the sheer magnitude of the monopoly the church had.

[Neanderthaland]

The point in that case is that those individuals made their discoveries largely in spite of their faith, rather than because of it.

Or maybe it just happened that they had a faith and were working in science.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Or some of them sought out the laws of the universe due to a belief in a Lawgiver, nah?

I mean, the idea that you can get closer to God by studying nature is something that sometimes crops up. Then again, so is the idea that physical reality is corrupt and sinful and we should all focus on spiritual matters. So at best you break even here.


Generally speaking it's best to attribute the achievements of science to science, rather than try to pass credit off to unscientific beliefs.

[Nolo gap]

this is one of those things that are not all one way, talking here about scientist of and not of 'faith'.

public schools though, should never teach hatred of logic,

that the unknown owes anything to what people tell each other,

beliefs
and probabilities established by verifiable and repeatable evidence
are two very different things,

and there is no logic in pre-meditatedly confusing the issue.

[Kowani]

Six days, actually.

OK, yeah. It was six. Doesn't make it less dumb.

That's kind of offensive.

Yeah, comparing the mentally disabled to Creationists is a insult to the mentally disabled.

I love this post.

[New Legland]

Quite disappointing that 5% of people think only creation """""science""""" should be taught in schools. Do they know what the purpose of schools is?

[Godular]

Quite disappointing that 5% of people think only creation """""science""""" should be taught in schools. Do they know what the purpose of schools is?

Maybe they thought it was a joke option.

[The Grims]

Quite disappointing that 5% of people think only creation """""science""""" should be taught in schools. Do they know what the purpose of schools is?

To teach kids what they themselves believe ?

[Geneviev]

Quite disappointing that 5% of people think only creation """""science""""" should be taught in schools. Do they know what the purpose of schools is?

Maybe they thought it was a joke option.

Considering my OP, evolution should have been more of a joke option. Still, I hope that's what those people thought.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Maybe they thought it was a joke option.

Considering my OP, evolution should have been more of a joke option. Still, I hope that's what those people thought.

Sheeit... who reads the OP once the thread breaks 5 pages?

[Geneviev]

Considering my OP, evolution should have been more of a joke option. Still, I hope that's what those people thought.

Sheeit... who reads the OP once the thread breaks 5 pages?

Am I the only person who does that?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

The case around Galileo is not as simple as anti-Catholics portray it.

Unsurprisingly, high school history often misinterprets the past, or just gets it flat out wrong.

[Kowani]

The case around Galileo is not as simple as anti-Catholics portray it.

Unsurprisingly, high school history often misinterprets the past, or just gets it flat out wrong.

Catholic.com.
Now there’s a source that just screams fair and balanced.

[The Grims]

The case around Galileo is not as simple as anti-Catholics portray it.

Unsurprisingly, high school history often misinterprets the past, or just gets it flat out wrong.

According to Catholics, who feel much maligned.

[BeatsMe]

Back in a time when the church held a virtual monopoly on "scientific research" one had to pretend to be religious, give it at least lip service in order to be able to research with proper facilities. And there were times when there was the implicit threat of the inquisition against those in positions of influence who dared to question certain widely held beliefs. Galileo was put on trial by the inquisition for daring to espouse a heliocentric view of our solar system rather than the church's supported earth centric idea. He was even convicted of heresy. I'm sure he became very cautious afterwards as to not to offend the 'church'.

While rest of your argument not quoted here may or may not be correct, I have extreme problem with "Back in a time when the church held a virtual monopoly on "scientific research" ".
I believe these opinions are modern VERY inaccurate depictions of reality. It actual is specific modern type of propaganda.

Because LAST time when "church" had any real power on scientific thought was before reformation.
People like Copernicus lived in 1487, and even then Copernicus revolutionary idea was that center of world is not earth but Sun. The church never EVER said (at least during the last millennia) that earth is not round or any other bullshit the people are implying.
While I am not particulary familiar with southern europe situation, I am almost compleatly sure than nowhere in central/nothern europe any church had anything to do with scientific research.
Maybe only exception is reaction towards Darwin, but that was more on personal level of individual people. If I am mistaken please give me ANY official denial by any western mainstream christian church.
If that was issued by some of the Happy clappy usa evangelists and their of-shots, then it does not count. It is specifically their unique problem.

By the way: Galileo was Italian guy (lived in 16xx) who often offended fellow compatriots, but managed to publish several books. He offended the Pope personaly and was condemned heretical. But he was never burned. And by the way he published most of his books and research AFTER his condemnation. And yes he believed in Copernicus idea of sun in center of universe and found more proof of that.