Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

That sounds to me like you are dismissing scientific inquiry related to "the standard view" as being silly, but maybe I have misunderstood there.


Creationists might or might not be scientists, as such, but their "theories" existed before they were born.


Hovind also addresses that, but I am not qualified to do the same.


That is not what this thread is about. Nevertheless...


If you knew me at all, you would know that is the furthest thing from the truth about me!

Right. And the Catholics have no problem with. It was Pope John Paul who admitted that the evidence for evolution was strong and came from many different fields. As long as you believe in the divine creation of a "soul" the Catholics have no issue with it. The former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, was an evangelical Christian who accepted that the evidence for evolution was overwhelming.

But creationists almost always explain it in terms of believers versus atheists. That atheists are just being mean and hardheaded.



My point is that there is a consensus view among professionals in these fields. That view is not creationism. Talking to 10 year olds won't change that consensus. You need to deal with the adults and convince them. Trying to side step the process has not worked and it will never work. That's my point.

Last edited by simon_says on 27 Feb 2014, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Biblical literalism is not the only enemy here since evolution has some dogma of its own, but we definitely agree on the idea of actual truths never being self-contradictory or in conflict with each other.

Once in a very great while I'll read an article by a Christian scientist who is so strong in his/her faith that they can validate their belief in God without trying to tear down over 130 years of scientific progress. I always enjoy and respect this type of person. They have the education and intelligence to understand the issues and see how religion and science can mesh in a working society.

On the other hand it feels as though 99.99% of Christians opposing our present scientific educational progress for religious reasons are scientifically clueless and only offer their "religious" opinions, having no other basis for comparison (and exactly what they were taught to believe as little children).

When I was a kid I was always jealous of people who had a religion (especially Catholics) but now I don't think that way anymore.

denny

Understood, and I also understand and do not complain that schools are now beyond the control of religion and subject to "a consensus view among professionals" in a variety of fields. However, none of that changes the fact of "lies in the textbooks" where religious stances on evolution have set good science aside in favor of whatever.

Evolution wouldn't try to explain trees standing in layers of earth. That's the domain of geology. I tried to find evidence via google that trees have been found preserved whole underground and couldn't. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen (could just mean I'm a terrible googler). However, if it did happen, that doesn't mean God did it.

Geologists and anthropologists have looked into whether climate change of the past could have caused flooding significant enough to inspire Great Flood stories across multiple cultures. It looks like that could have happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/eviden ... d=17884533



Ballard's particular idea may be debunked. But it is certainly worth investigating which events described in the Bible and in the ancient writings and stories of other cultures happened. However, just because it turns out that something described in the Bible or elsewhere actually happened does not mean that God did it. For people who use religion to describe the world, all astounding natural phenomena will be described as divine in origin.

Oh cool, so slavery, genocide, and dynasty building are all perfectly cool then. I call Vlad the Impaler! All hale Prince Dracule!

Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorist (who thinks that the NWO is suppressing creationism in schools) currently serving a 10 year sentence for tax fraud...

He may not be the most credible source...

Errors in textbooks should be corrected. But if a creationist says something it's best to triple check it. In my experience they are prolific liars. You should apply some of your skepticism to their claims as well.

What specifically do consider to be these lies in the textbooks? I have seen quite a few videos of education councils from various states (Texas being the most chronic offender) editing their textbooks to remove parts of history and science that do not agree with their religious beliefs (including the complete omission of evolution in some cases), but have not seen much in the way of actually adding falsehoods.

^ This.

Creationism is beyond ridiculous. Keep creationism where it belongs in bible class along with the rest of the biblical mythology.

Keep science in science class. I find it amazing that creationism is still being pushed as anything other than mythology by America.

Are we also to debate whether lightning is caused by the sudden release of a build up of electrical charge or caused by Zeus when he's in a bad mood.

The stupidity I hear coming from America at the moment just defies belief. Apparently 25% of Americans don't know the Earth orbits the Sun. What do they teach in science classes over there?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-in-four-americans-dont-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun-and-only-half-believe-in-evolution-9131721.html

"Evolution is the religion of people with issues against the idea of 'God?'" you say?
Well, I fancy myself a Christian, but I also believe in a divinely guided evolution. I can tell you, I hardly am against the idea of God. And what do you base your assertion that evolution is religion on? And for that matter, whose creation account is going to be taught? I think creationists just assume it's going to be that of Christianity. But what about the Islamic viewpoint? Or the Buddhist? Or the Native American animist? Would any of them have their creation stories taught in science class as well?

This meme about fossil trees that poke through multiplle of layers of geologic strata is a fairy tale. There are no such things.YECs talk about them in their literature - but the only examples they can ever point to were all proven to be hoaxes decades ago. But that doesnt stop YECs from talking about for them still- decades and decades later.

Second that mantra about how scientist 'use circular reasoning to date strate via fossils' is nonsense.

Pioneering geologists created the nomenclature about geological strata (Devonian, Cambrian, Triassic, all of that stuff) more than a centurey before Darwin. These 18th and 19th Centurey rock hounds noticed that the same damn fossil critters kept appearing in the same rock strata- which was laid in the same order. And so they used the fossils to ID the physical order of rock strata- without worrying about dating. If anything- these early rock hounds were all "Creationists", and were all "young earthers" because they predated Darwin. But their findings helped paved the way for geologic gradualism-which in turn paved the way of the notion of biologic gradualism (ie evolution) which came much later.

But lets put the actual real history of science aside for a moment.

Lets say what you're saying is true: that just a couple decades ago scientists all conspired to make up all this fossil stuff to justify stratigraphy in somekind of circular round robin.

You still have some explaining to do.

There are strata of rocks in the earths crust. And certain fossil creatures are found in certain strata, and not in others. And many of these same critters are not around today.

So if the Earth is young why arent there dinosaurs anymore? Or trilobites anymore? Or Mammoths anymore?

And further: when dinosaur die-how do they know which strata to go to? How do the dead dinosaurs know not to hobknob with the dead trilobites (ie occupy the same rock strata). And not mix with Mammoths, and giant sloths? And how do Jurrassic dinosaurs know not to mix with Cretaceaous dinosaurs, nor with triassic dinosaurs when they die, and so on, and so on...? What orchestrates the way these fossil flora and fauna are found in the earth so that it LOOKs like they were laid down over eons in different ages?

One old YEC argument was that different animals ran to different elevations during this churning world devouring flood. Humans, being the brightest, ran up to the highest ground and so are found in the more recent strata. They also mumble something about different creatures having different densities so naturally they would settle into different layers after the flood. You have to hit yourself in the head with a hammer a few times while saying it.

Obviously this assumes that the trees and flowers ran too.

Huh? Evolution is based on multiple lines of evidence, ranging from archaeology to biology to genetics to chemistry to geology and to many other fields. When multiple lines of evidence converge on a hypothesis, you know you've got something with great explanatory power.

Thanks for that. Best laugh I've had all day.