Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

For some it is, and some proof of that exists right here in this thread.


No, that would be evolutionism and creationism.


Yes, religious beliefs should be kept out of science.

Lee, you use the word "evolutionism" what exactly do you mean by that word? I've never heard it used before. Is it a word you have invented?

Edit: I just looked up the word:

So what exactly are you saying Lee?

Essentially the counterpart of whatever is meant whenever people speak of so-called "creationism". I cannot see any legitimate reason for any true scientist (at least as I would perceive one) to ever need to use either term since science cannot prove creation or intelligent design either present or absent historically...and yes, I do understand some scientists have nevertheless concluded evolution rules out either creation or intelligent design.

I would like to re-emphasize though that neither biblical creation or intelligent design are science and consequently have no place in science classes. Creation is an aspect of religion and belongs in religious study classes and intelligent design is a form of philosophy pertinent to philosophical discussions.

So... I'm still trying to grasp whatever point it is you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that those who accept that evolution is a fact should not be teaching evolution? Are you saying that biblical creation and intelligent design should be presented in science classes? It is hard to make any sense of what you are trying to get at. You are going to have to spell it out.

We agree, and where we apparently disagree is on the matter of whether either is a plausible explanation for anything or everything in existence, whether past, present or yet-to-come-along.


Not by definition unless someone can prove religion preceded any man or woman ever pondering the thought.


Of course not.


No, the people in authority should (continue to) present whatever they believe true.

Maybe this will help a bit here:

I can respect the right of anyone to believe all interactions between science and religion can only always be in conflict, but I prefer dialogue (such as Hovind suggests and as a certain teacher had presumed to carry into the classroom).

Science works upon a set of clearly defined principles associated with the gathering of physical data and the production of testable theories to explain that data. Religion can have no influence on that fundamental process. The only scope religion could have would be to suggest that scientists look for "something" or to see if there is any physical evidence for "something". Scientists get hunches, usually based upon their own experience of where to look; there is nothing to preclude some of these hunches coming from religion or anywhere else for that matter. Many of the hunches turn out to be incorrect or to lead nowhere; but intuitive hunches are a good starting place, wherever they originate.

The problem I have with ID is that it has not led to any physical evidence to support it; on the contrary, many aspects of evolution are being unravelled all the time and the mechanisms for evolution are found to be non-intelligent. Bits of DNA thrown about by viruses for example between themselves and other organisms. (I could go on but that is just one example). The other problem with ID is that it introduces some magical force that intervenes in a way contrary to our current understanding of the laws of physics. In short ID is a theory that has no physical evidence supporting it. It lacks plausibility.

Last edited by TallyMan on 10 Mar 2014, 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Excellent; I think I see what you are getting at.

Regarding creation:
It can't be ruled out that some entity acted to create the first self replicating molecule from which the rest of evolution followed. However, scientific experiments have shown that some simple molecules have a proclivity to reproduce themselves from bits of other molecules laying around in the so called primordial soup. I am speculating now based upon my scientific knowledge... it wouldn't surprise me if scientists in the not too distant future discovered a simply naturally occurring mix of organic molecules that spontaneously form self replicating precursors to life. Actually there have been a number of experiments which indicate this is extremely likely and it is largely a question of connecting up the dots. Amino acids are known to readily form in the circumstances of the early earth and RNA has been found to spontaneously form - and that is the basis of all living organisms. So while it can't be ruled out that some entity made the first self replicating molecule; it looks very much like natural processes would do this anyway - using simple principles of chemical attraction / repulsion and arrangement of 3D molecular structures to form the lowest energy state etc.

Who do you think should the people in authority be, when it comes to learning about a certain subject? I dont know about your countries habbits, but around here, the people in authority for teaching math are math specialists. The people in authority about history, are history specialists. The people in authority about physics, are physics specialists.

Who else should it be? If you have troubles with your car, will you rather relie on the experience of an hairdresser, or of an mechanic?

Within your context as far as a given school's textbooks are concerned, those people could be from within any of the four categories I had found:


Within my own context, the people charged with running a given school (whether secular or religious) are the ones who decide about what textbooks from the above categories actually end up in their respective classrooms.


A mechanic, of course, but that is not the question here. The question here has to do with whether or not someone who might happen to be a hairdresser must be categorically dismissed from or even derided by others within the realm of science simply because s/he happens to be a hairdresser...and yes, I know some folks here will love having a field day with that statement!

If the hairdresser was also knowledgeable about science I can't see any problem with them teaching or science or advocating what science to teach. However, if they knew little or nothing about science they are unable to make educated decisions about that subject. I know nothing about car mechanics and I wouldn't presume to tell a car mechanic their job!

Yet there are people who know little or no science who are keen to dictate the science curriculum. It is beyond stupid.

So when it comes to knowledge about cars, OF COURSE we should rather relie on an mechanics experiences, then those of an hairdresser, but when it comes to biology suddenly we should not OF COURSE rather relie on what biologist specialist teacher tell us. So how exactly should it be working? For biology, we are asking the religion teacher about his oppinions, for music we ask the physical education teacher, for history we are asking the chemists teacher, for static we are going to ask the english teachers and for religion we ask the art teacher for his oppinion... O_o

Beside thats its not only about biology, but as well about astronomy and physics (No, we are not able to see starts in more then an 4500 light years distance, because 4500 years ago, starts did yet not exist, so there can be no light that have traveled 4500 light years distance.... O_o), geology (tectonical movements - byebye, understandings of different forms of soil and rocks formed in thousend of years- byebye, water buildings of natural area done by thousend of years - byebye....), maths (Yop, the measurements of speed of light distances are done by math, but according to creationism they must be wrong, so byebye math....), chemics (existence of certain elements simply make no sense on an earth actually created the way it right now is), ....

So because of anyway every technical subject being wrong, for the sake of humanity, lets close all engineering schools and turn them all into waldorf, because at least "learning to express your name with dancing" is at least not against someones religion as far as I know. ^^ And when building bridges, for the sake of dialogue and inclusion, we ask as well the priests about their oppinion of statics. -.-

When doing some changes on my house this year, do I think it would be rude in the oppinion and dialogue and inclusion, if I simply relie on the plumbers knowledge if installing a new toilette, or do I need to ask our local priest as well about his oppinion toward this topic, for the sake of dialogue between scientific knowledge and religion?

If I might add just a little so I can agree with clarity:

Agreed, and I do not argue that ardent "Creationists", as such, should have any say or authority (beyond the ballot box, of course) as to what is presented in secular (public, government) schools. In the specific situation behind my beginning this thread, I suspect the teacher clearly knew he was "crossing lines" (contract, etc.) while using outside material to question the approved textbooks, and I know at least one of the men on the school board who likely (at least privately) applauds what that teacher did. Not being a flag-waving patriot on either side of that argument, however, the entire matter is of no concern to me other than to encourage others to do as has been suggested even here in this thread by carefully investigating the alleged "lies in the textbooks". As Hovind clearly states, the goal is not to push evolution out and/or to force Creation in, but to simply be sure the science being presented is truly "good science"...and I do not say that to re-fire any circle of debate over the matter of "good science". Rather, my thought is (and has always been) more along the line of teachers (at least wherever allowed) teaching pupils *how* to think, not merely what to think.

No, and that is not being suggested here. As close as I might come, the dialogue would be more like between the general contractor, a licensed plumber and a handyman such as myself so you can be sure of a complete picture as to possibilities before the actual work is assigned to the "school" of your own choosing.

I believe in theistic evolution (that is, divinely guided), but I think it's obscenely ridiculous to teach that the earth is only thousands of years old, and that dinosaurs had lived alongside humans, cows, and border collies.

I tend to agree, but I do not say that as any kind of "position" on the matter. "Formless and void" was never documented in detail, and it would not matter to me when mankind (eventually?) came along.