Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

This is yet another episode in the evolution-versus-creation debate -- evolution is the historical challenger -- as presently going on in my home county. I first heard of it here:
http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/school ... onism.html

After I had asked the newspaper to report what the teacher had actually presented to his students, a video link appeared here:
http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/2014/0 ... hools.html

alternative link to same video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 8GgrUposII

Students in favor of what the teacher has done are making their own statement with T-shirts saying "Teach both. Let us decide."
https://twitter.com/mrculpshirts
(note: The above link is shared here for informational purposes only and is not intended as any kind of promotion or solicitation for T-shirt sales.)

I think Kent Hovind does a fine job of debunking evolution...

"I am not trying to get evolution out of the schools; I am not trying to get creation into the schools; I just want the lies out of the text books." (Kent Hovind at 2:30 in the video)

...yet I also understand the teacher will lose in this case just like any other. However, it would be great to hear an evolutionist or two honestly declare the battle is a religious one where Evolutionism is just as much a religion as Creationism (and with neither being necessary or helpful in the area of actual science).

Yes, "Teach both" is a creationist position. Seeing as neither the ID movement nor YEC creationism have a scientific theory it would be difficult to teach in a science class. It would be like introducing alchemy to chemistry class or astrology to astronomy lessons. They have nothing to do with science.

Evolution could be falsified. It's just never happened. Kent Hovind has openly admitted that his views cannot change because the bible is the bible. It's not science.

I disagree, unless ALL religions, along with evolution, is taught.

I am sure most Christians would love to have creationism taught in schools but they would hate it if any other religion was taught right along side it. I say keep creationism out of schools unless the schools are willing to teach all forms of religion without bias, and then let the children choose.

I am raising my son to be an evolutionist, I would be pissed if religion suddenly started to get shoved down his throat, in fact a teacher already tried, a couple of them in fact, and I tore them a new hole.

When he is old enough to make his own informed choices about such things then I advised him to read up on all kinds of religions and philosophies then make his choices. thats what I done regardless of my religious family trying to shove their own beliefs down my throat, they wanted me to become the next family minister.. No, for me, Evolution is a fact, and no one pushed that down me, I did my own research and then made my choice. and I just didn't research just one type of religion, I researched hundreds, wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Cristian, Jewish, roman, Egyptian, Celtic, and on and on and on.

.

Last edited by AspergianMutantt on 27 Feb 2014, 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

That might be the cry of creationists, but that is also completely sane, logical and scientific. Maybe the bird did come from a dinosaur egg or maybe the chicken was first, and hearing both theories to be investigated only makes rational sense.


Understood, and there is where I wish someone such as Hovind could just deal with science (as he does so well) while leaving Scripture aside. For example, Scripture (and/or any specific mention of Noah) is not necessary since the entire world shares stories of some kind of great flood in ages past, and that explains trees standing in layers of earth where evolution cannot.

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be well-versed in all the details of all of this, just intelligent enough to form a few logical conclusions.

Do you see your own religious bias there? Evolution is the religion of people with issues against the idea of "God", and your early indoctrination of him is really no different than the one first imposed upon you. I staunchly defend your right to do that, of course, I would just ask that you call it what it is: religion, not science.

NFW.

Yes I understand what your saying, but really, what is this about forever and saving my soul? screw that, I don't need a god to judge me, and I don't need eternity, my eternity is the moments that we live here and now, and no god can take that away from us ones its been done, those moments are mine and mine alone, and thats my eternity. enjoy your here and now, nothing that is born is forever, its not how long you live it, its how well and what you do with it. . Damnation? Your scare tactics don't work on me, in fact thats one of the reasons I rejected religion.

I came to an understanding and had my own religion once, can we teach that in school too? You might like it, it comes with that spirituality and everything else, just there is some slight differences, god, is everything, not an individual within the universe, god is the universe. secondly, there is no spiritual after life, our essences flow back into the god that issued us forth into reality only to become one again with it. and there is no heaven or hell, our lives and our wold is what it is. BUT, there is that spiritual connection between us all, because were a part of that god too. in essence, if god is everything, then where a functioning part of that being too, perhaps were what memories and experience are gained from transfered with and stored in, like miniature brain cells as well as part of its awareness.. AS GOD EVOLVES, perhaps then we too,

Last edited by AspergianMutantt on 27 Feb 2014, 11:49 am, edited 3 times in total.

The evidence for evolution and an old universe is very, very strong. To deny it YECs like Hovind throw out physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology and probably a few others. How in the world can you teach kids that most of science is wrong in a science class? That the speed of light isn't what it seems, that geologists have no idea what they are talking about, that physicists have radiometric decay wrong, that astronomers are dumb or lying, that geneticists are atheist fanatics, etc, etc. What kind of science lesson is that?

If you want to change standard views you do it by convincing qualified adults through the proper channels, not by brainwashing kids. Creationists have the order wrong.

A completely separate matter, the avoidance of which is nevertheless part of the foundation of evolution.


Hovind clearly explains how that is at the core of evolution, but I do not say that to argue against anyone's personal beliefs, wishes or hopes.


Please forgive me if it has sounded like anything like that has come from me! Personally, and while using a pragmatic approach, I leave any and all religions out of science.

I have no problem with the idea of an old universe, but evolution is a theoretical construct with its only evidence being dependent upon itself...and much here is also dependent upon what is meant by "evolution".


I do not perceive Hovind as doing that. What I hear are reports of the lies in textbooks.


Both side of the religious evolution-versus-creation debate would say that, so let us set each aside and just look at science as the processing of knowable facts!

What do you mean "both"? There are a billion different creation myths from a billion different religions. I hope you're prepared to teach them all.

This debate is silly and it's a real shame that it even has to exist.

The bible has no place in school outside of theology class. Quite frankly, trying to pass it off as science is beyond dumb.

Science is the exact opposite of Faith. One asks for evidence before making an assertion (which evolution has mountains of) while the other expects you to believe without any evidence.

Creationists are not only pissing all over the very concept of scientific discovery, they are cheapening the very foundation of thier own belief system. If you actually had faith you shouldn't feel the need to gussy up your religion by pretending it's something other than what it is.

Is you're faith so tepid, leejosepho, that it has to have somekind of legitimacy outside of church for you to believe it? Sounds to me like you've got some deep seated insecurity about your faith, which is quite understandable considering some of the things your expected to believe. It gets less understandable (in fact, dangerous) when your ilk then manifests this insecurity and use it to hinder the march of scientific progress.

Nobody can legitimately claim christianity is anything other than an enemy of science. I can easily blame Christianity for the fact that I can't trade my fleshy form for a robot body or travel to a newly terraformed Mars on my next vacation. We'd be 1000 years ahead of where we are now if it weren't for the dark ages and that's exactley what happens when you let religion into your classrooms. Hell, we see it today in the Middle East. Muslim societies used to be at the forfront of scientific progress and philosophical enlightenment untill relgious extreamisim took hold. You can't claim that state endorsed christianity (which is exactley what teaching creationism in public schools would be) does not have the same potential to lead us backwards. There's far more historical evidence for that potential than an single claim in the bible.

Last edited by Geekonychus on 27 Feb 2014, 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"simon says" had mentioned YECs, and I was just following suit there by speaking of "YECs" as one group and "evolutionists" as another. But the overall point here is that science would be nothing but science if all religious beliefs, wishes or hopes were set aside during the practice of actual science. For example, scientists in whatever specific field or fields know the earth has layers and there are fossils in layers, and scientists also know there are trees standing through the layers...and that certainly makes it impossible to use layers for dating fossils or fossils for dating layers. At that point, the repeatable science of shaking a jar of water and earth to see the layers separate would suggest some kind of great flood. Evolution, however, categorically dismisses that and clings to the circular reasoning of fossils dating layers that date the fossils simply because some kind of great flood happens to be mentioned in one religion or another. That is religion, not science!

There is no question about what the standard view is so if someone questions that they are being silly. One of the co-founders of the ID movement even admits it. Philip Johnson said that ID doesn't have a theory but that evolution does have one and that it's well put together. He went on to say that skeptics will need to address that. The way you address it is by generating your own theories, doing research, publishing and changing minds.

Creationists have failed to accomplish anything for decades and that will continue.

That's not true. We also have radiometric dating, of which there are a dozen types at least.

Here is the difference between you and I. I know what creationists say and can parse their arguments. You are afraid to crack a book that might change your mind and so you can only present the arguments of one side.. You know it and so do I.

However silly it might or might not be, it exists within society as we all know it today. So then, shall we work together to try to resolve it?


We agree.


At least as a theory, it is as worthy of consideration as is evolution...and yes, I do understand many people cannot lean either way without great personal bias.


Not completely true since all beliefs including evolution require faith in one thing or another, but yes, I do believe laboratories and pulpits need to be in separate buildings (even though evolutionists preaching from the lab might disagree there).


Not at all, but neither is that the subject of this discussion.

there is a third option; teach from the idea that the two aren't inherently self contradictory.

Regardless of your opinion on god, or your view of them, are creationists and theists really so dogmatic they couldn't accept that perhaps God 'used' evolution as a tool?

The enemy here is biblical literalism rather than theism per sae. Many christians, notably the mormons have conceded that the Young Earth model is bogus.

This whole "teach both sides" stuff is ridiculous. Of course we could teach students that the earth is flat AND teach that the earth is a sphere, and "let them decide for themselves". Except one theory has a lot of evidence and the other doesn't.