How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[rohirrim TR]

from that tree creationist statements that place the flood 4-5000 years ago, are supported.

[Nurvingiel]

I wasn't saying that that tree disproves Creationist theories, since obviously it doesn't. I wanted to point out that since we can directly observe something that old, extrapolation shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

I think it's interesting that trees are not only the oldest, but also the largest organisms in the world! (Unless we figure out how mycchorizal colonies work. Then they win.)

But... didn't Abraham live before the flood, and wasn't he over 900 years old? Then, if the flood took place 5000 years ago, that means Abraham was born only 100 years after the Earth was created. Well, I guess that fits. But for a supernatural being, God is sure in a big fat hurry!

Actually, I think there was a flood 5000 years or so ago too. IIRC, Sumerian records mention a huge flood, as well as possibly others. But, the presence of a major flood 5000 years ago doesn't mean that the world is only 6000 years old. Also, geologists have determined that there was an ice age 10'000 years ago. Something existed then to have the ice age on!

[Count Comfect]

Rohirrim, check again. Adam lived 130 years before begetting Seth, Seth lived 105 to beget Enos, Enos lived 90 to beget Cainan, Cainan lived 70 to beget Mahalaleel, Mahalaleel lived 65 to beget Jared, Jared lived 162 to beget Enoch (2), Enoch lived 65 years to beget Methusaleh, Methusaleh lived 187 years to beget Lamech, who lived 182 years to beget Noah, and Noah lives 500 years before the flood (all data from Genesis, Chapter 5, KJV).

That is 1374 years from Adam's creation to the Flood. So if the world was created in 4004 BC, the flood has to happen in 2630 BC. That tree is 4789 years old. 2005-4789=-2784, or 2784 BC.

I would argue, however, that the tree certainly doesn't "support" OR "deny" creationist ideas of the flood, for the flood wouldn't have destroyed plants anyway... else where did the olive tree come from?

But Nurv's point is good, I think, that the extrapolations aren't too insane... c.f. my own posts about dating technique veracity. The idea is that we can observe that radioactive decay in elements with the same process but shorter half-lives works perfectly regularly by half-life (ie for cesium, which is used in atomic clocks). We then extrapolate that the same applies to other elements, because they use the exact same process, and use that for dating.

[rohirrim TR]

ahh yes the ice age, where do you get all the water to form all of that ice? the flood perhaps.

[Curubethion]

What's up with all the literal fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible? (No offense intended)

I think that the Bible isn't word-for-word literal scientific evidence...mostly it's about the origin of sin, not the origin and history of man. And what does the Flood have to do with Creationism???

[Count Comfect]

rohirrim - the oceans, like the water is going BACK to right now.

That literal fundamentalist view, from me at least, was only intended as a discouragement of young earth theory. Flood has to do with creationism because they happen to be religious beliefs about physical events contained in the same (Judeo-Christian, basically) holy writings.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

What's up with all the literal fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible? (No offense intended)

I think that the Bible isn't word-for-word literal scientific evidence...mostly it's about the origin of sin, not the origin and history of man. And what does the Flood have to do with Creationism???

just bringing up talking points, but i probably shouldn't because, i don't have the time to keep a good debate going

[HOBBIT]

Ok, the essay topic:

"Write an essay in which you take a position on whether creationism and/or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in public schools.

Based on the first amendment, should these concepts be taught exclusively, tuaght side by side with evolution or not taught at all?

Give the reasons for your position"

It is for an essay contest, so I can't really post it here. Maybe long after it is done.


This topic should be helpful

[brownjenkins]

cool, i'd like to see it when done

i'd say it has very little to do with the first amendment... the first amendment allows freedom of speech, but it does not require each and every single opinion to be expressed in every public forum... it just requires none to be suppressed

evolution should be taught in science class 'cause it is a scientific theory... ID should not because it is not a scientific theory

however, considering that many people throughout the world have creationist beliefs of all kinds, i'd highly suggest that something like comparative religions/philosophies of the world should be specific required course study in addition to english, science, math and history

[Count Comfect]

bj, the first amendment also includes the establishment of religion clause

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

bj, the first amendment also includes the establishment of religion clause

true...

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

but i believe most take "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to mean that laws should not be made that establish one religion as the true religion... thus, making biblical creationism required study in a public school without addressing the other versions of religious creationism would be against the constitution

but if presented in it's own forum, along with other belief-related (as opposed to observation-related) "sciences" would probably be acceptable, as long as somewhat equal coverage was given to all the major belief systems found in the world we live in

[Spock]

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true...
but i believe most take "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to mean that laws should not be made that establish one religion as the true religion...

By that you ignore what the founding fathers wrote. You feel "true religion" is meant but that is not what was written nor what the laws of the country have upheld.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

By that you ignore what the founding fathers wrote. You feel "true religion" is meant but that is not what was written nor what the laws of the country have upheld.

establishment is what is meant... teaching any religious belief as a possible "fact of life" is establishing religion... teaching all religions in historical sense, as in "some people believe this, some people do not" is different

madison (who helped draft the clause) and jefferson addressed these issues:

In 1785 Madison wrote the "Remonstrance" wherein he protested the "legal establishment of Christianity," the legal establishment of "religion," and the authority of the Virginia legislature to make a law providing tax money for teachers of the Christian religion -- which he referred to as a "proposed establishment." In 1811 President Madison vetoed two bills as violating the "establishment" clause.

In 1786 the Virginia legislature adopted Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom which originated with Jefferson and which rejected the idea of establishing "religion" by law -- not just the Episcopalians, not just Christianity, but "religion." Neither the word church nor the word Christianity is used even one time in the Virginia Statute (or the Constitution). In an 1808 letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson defined the religion clauses: "no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion.

In 1789 Congress rejected wording which would have placed the word national before "religion." On June 8, 1789, the proposed House version read: "nor shall any national religion be established." A House committee of ten, which included Madison, was selected to review the proposal--it deleted the word national. On August 15 (Annals of Congress, I:757-759) the committee's proposal was presented: "no religion shall be established by law." Then the House, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, changed the wording: "Congress shall make no laws touching religion." On August 20 the House changed the wording again: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." On September 3 the Senate took up consideration of the House proposal and in one day rejected three motions for rewording: Congress shall make no law "establishing one religious sect," "establishing any religious sect," and "establishing any particular denomination" (Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States, p.70). The Senate then accepted the House version: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." On September 9 the Senate changed its mind and adopted the following: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship" (SJ, p. 77). A joint Senate-House conference committee (Madison was cochairman) agreed to a final wording which was approved by the House on September 24 and Senate on September 25: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

[Spock]

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This and whats been posted afore are in agreement. Surprise.
Establishment means by law, not teaching a viewpoint. If anything the founding fathers wanted freedom of expression which negates NOT teaching.

[Count Comfect]

Mandating the teaching of a particular religious belief IS establishing that religion, because it is giving that religion a preference over others - and this has been backed up by numerous Supreme Court decisions. Freedom of expression, by the way, has nothing to do with teaching - only with expressing your views. You are not guaranteed a particular forum (ie a classroom) in which to express those views. My teacher can scream over and over that God created the world in 6 days, under freedom of expression: however, to do that in his capacity AS teacher, in a publicly established, funded, and run institution, would be illegitimate, because in that capacity he speaks not as a private citizen but as a government employee.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Mandating the teaching of a particular religious belief IS establishing that religion, because it is giving that religion a preference over others -

However, classes which teach various views of creation and evolution are not establishing a religion and I think that's the line some keep crossing in their protesting teaching of anything but what they want taught. Our government does not Mandate teaching any one theory, fact or idea. Individual states or universities may arrange course descriptions but that's not the same thing.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

This and whats been posted afore are in agreement. Surprise.
Establishment means by law, not teaching a viewpoint. If anything the founding fathers wanted freedom of expression which negates NOT teaching.

but the key is in what way it is taught... teaching a system founded completely upon beliefs (creationism and ID) in the same forum as teaching systems founded upon observation and testing is "establishing" religion by giving the belief systems equal status with scientific theories... which they do not have

[Count Comfect]

Spock - look at the Dover school case: it mandates the teaching of ID - science teachers are required by law to read a statement about ID to their classes. So yes, there are cases in which this is very directly mandated.

In other cases, as I mentioned, a teacher in a public school district, or a public university, is in a capacity as a government employee, and so their actions are bounded in the same way - they can no more themselves mandate the teaching of a specific, religious belief regarding human development than the legislature could pass such a law. A comparative theology class is different - or even a science class that taught the problems with evolution and introduced every religion's belief about human creation (although that would be objectionable on the NOT SCIENCE grounds) - because it does not prefer one religion over all others.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Spock - look at the Dover school case: it mandates the teaching of ID

And I agree it should not be but in that case the society of that area had put in place people who reflected what they wanted taught. This, however, is totally different from *government* mandating and that's what I was having a problem with; it doesn't,.

[Count Comfect]

We have a representative government. The school board is an organ of government. In both cases, the government is theoretically "people who reflected what they want taught." The reason we have constitutional protections is so that a majority can't just do whatever they want because they put people in charge who reflect their views - there are certain limits. One of those is establishment of religion.