View Full Version : Creationism in US schools.
frogstamper
18-05-2008, 14:20
A growing number of schools in the southern states of America are now teaching "creationism" as fact, how can a democracy allow their young children's minds to be polluted with such fundamentalist religious dogma?.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm
This is another one the fundamentalists like, the dinosaurs coexisting with mankind 6000 years ago, I fail to understand how anyone can convince themselves, in the wake of such overwhelming evidence, how this can be true.
http://christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-dm.html
papa smurf
18-05-2008, 14:56
religion never lets a small thing like the facts ,get in the way of its twisted view of how the universe works:rolleyes:
A growing number of schools in the southern states of America are now teaching "creationism" as fact, how can a democracy allow their young children's minds to be polluted with such fundamentalist religious dogma?.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm
There's a clue in your question. Democracy. As in, the people choose. Whether you like it or not. ;)
This is another one the fundamentalists like, the dinosaurs coexisting with mankind 6000 years ago, I fail to understand how anyone can convince themselves, in the wake of such overwhelming evidence, how this can be true.
http://christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-dm.html
Perhaps you can give us your expert summary of the 'overwhelming' evidence. Or are you making a statement of your faith in the people who have told you it's 'overwhelming'?
Perhaps you can give us your expert summary of the 'overwhelming' evidence. Or are you making a statement of your faith in the people who have told you it's 'overwhelming'?
Where's the evidence for creationism? Peer reviewed scientific journals would be nice ;)
Where's the evidence for creationism? Peer reviewed scientific journals would be nice ;)
Don't change the subject. :p:
Don't change the subject. :p:
Ah. A resounding 'There is none' then. :)
greencreeper
18-05-2008, 15:20
Religion - all boils down to not having the balls to face death and hiding behind some half-baked cobblers along the lines of there being an afterlife and you go there if you pretend to be virtuous :shrug:
I see the forum is a hotbed of well-researched, eloquently-put viewpoints this afternoon. :dozey:
The problem with this is that creationism isn’t a theory, it’s an assertion, to wit: The entire universe was created in six days, the days are 24-hour days, the layout for the creation and for the early history of the planet and humanity is in the first chapter of Genesis and it is exactly right. Everything has to be made to conform to these assertions, whilst in evolutionary theory, propositions are subject to rigorous peer-reviewed scientific process.
btw, let's not confuse Christianity with Creationism, please, which to my mind is a teleological quirk substantially unrelated to the grace one can achieve through Jesus Christ.
Tezcatlipoca
18-05-2008, 15:39
Biblical Creationism, Evolution... bah!
Everyone knows that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), and I challenge people to prove otherwise.
It's also high time that schools stopped teaching "gravity" in Physics lessons, & started teaching Intelligent Falling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling) instead.
Cobbydaler
18-05-2008, 18:00
I refer readers to a previous post of mine...
Link (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34404803-post1844.html)
frogstamper
18-05-2008, 19:13
Perhaps you can give us your expert summary of the 'overwhelming' evidence. Or are you making a statement of your faith in the people who have told you it's 'overwhelming'?
Chris I honestly thought this drivel was only taken seriously in some parts of the US, where would you like me to start as regarding the efficacy of evolution over creationism? 150 years of reputable research, the fact the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000-10000 years as the creationists would have us believe. The truly disturbing thought is how many American citizens believe this dogma, note the following link of a survey carried out in the US recently, it makes for pretty depressing reading.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Chris I honestly thought this drivel was only taken seriously in some parts of the US, where would you like me to start as regarding the efficacy of evolution over creationism? 150 years of reputable research, the fact the Earth is 6.5 billion years old, not 6000-10000 years as the creationists would have us believe. The truly disturbing thought is how many American citizens believe this dogma, note the following link of a survey carried out in the US recently, it makes for pretty depressing reading.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
It's actually 4.5 billion years old. I agree, it's really disturbing that there are schools teaching otherwise.
Well Creationism/Intelligent Design is part of the RE syllabus here already but only as a 'some people believe that.........'sort of way.
Incidentally I did wonder who was going to be the next brave soul to start up another ID/Creationism thread.
frogstamper wins...Good Luck.It was nice knowing you.:Sprint:
Well Creationism/Intelligent Design is part of the RE syllabus here already but only as a 'some people believe that.........'sort of way.
I'm sure most people have got no problem with it being taught like that.
There's a clue in your question. Democracy. As in, the people choose. Whether you like it or not. ;)
Truth isn't decided by a show of hands ;)
Perhaps you can give us your expert summary of the 'overwhelming' evidence. Or are you making a statement of your faith in the people who have told you it's 'overwhelming'?
There is a lot more evidence than there is for creationism, they are very good at dating old fossils and such. Also the amount of time for what we know has occurred due to geology, biology means that it has to be over 6000 years old.
I always think this cartoon is a nice take on creationism:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/do39/cartoon.gif
Chris I honestly thought this drivel was only taken seriously in some parts of the US, where would you like me to start as regarding the efficacy of evolution over creationism? 150 years of reputable research, the fact the Earth is 6.5 billion years old, not 6000-10000 years as the creationists would have us believe. The truly disturbing thought is how many American citizens believe this dogma, note the following link of a survey carried out in the US recently, it makes for pretty depressing reading.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
The thing is, even a rabid evolutionary proselyte like Richard Dawkins would shy away from making a statement like "the fact that the Earth is 6.5 billion years old...".
Before it's possible to have any meaningful discussion on this issue, we need to establish the ground rules and operating assumptions. Among these are a requirement that we understand what scientists understand by words like 'fact', 'theory' and 'hypothesis', and what the scientific method does and does not admit as evidence when weighing up competing hypotheses and formulating theories.
Bearing that in mind, it simply isn't possible to make the statement that you have just made. The consensus - and therefore the current theory, n.b. not fact, theory, is that Earth is X billion years old. The consensus is that claims that Earth is in fact only X thousand years old do not have sufficient basis in admissable scientific evidence to be taken seriously.
Now, on the Creation Science side of the argument ... proponents of the various 'Young Earth' hypotheses out there (for there are more than one) tried for years to promote their own view. They got nowhere because within their scientific arguments they appealed to the existence and action of a Divine, Omniscient, Creator God. Specifically Yahweh (or Jehovah, which is a poor Anglicisation of the name), the God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
These days they tend to talk about 'intelligent design' in a general sense rather than trying to tie the story into any particular religious text. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that by playing down the presence of God in their hypothesis, they believe they are less likely to run up against the not unreasonable objection from the scientific community at large, which is, more or less, 'God is not scientifically testable, therefore he can't form any part of a scientific theory'.
Intelligent design in and of itself does not attempt to go any further than to show that the universe could not have arisen spontaneously. To do this, its proponents take the scientific observations we are all familiar with, fossils, geology, etc etc, and to argue scientifically that the evidence does not in fact support the current theory.
They have had very limited success at this, but by showing that it is possible to construct an alternative hypothesis using only scientific evidence, they have (IMO at least) earned the right to at least a footnote in science classes where the current consensus should still get the lion's share of teaching time ... although I say this with the caveat that schools should do a hell of a lot better than they currently do at explaining what a scientific theory is. Far too many people leave school thinking that humankind understands for certain a lot more about the world than we actually do.
---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------
Truth isn't decided by a show of hands ;)
Neither it is. However the contents of the school syllabus is. Even in this country.
There is a lot more evidence than there is for creationism, they are very good at dating old fossils and such. Also the amount of time for what we know has occurred due to geology, biology means that it has to be over 6000 years old.
Damien, I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're reporting anything here that you have concluded based on your own reading. You're talking in exactly the same sort of third-hand generalities I was trying to pick up the OP for.
Just because you subscribe to the world view of the majority, does not absolve you from trying to understand for yourself what you believe.
I always think this cartoon is a nice take on creationism:
Glib straw-men aren't going to help us take the discussion any further forward though, are they?
Glib straw-men aren't going to help us take the discussion any further forward though, are they?
Is it really fair to describe that cartoon as a straw-man argument though? Isn't that essentially what people who believe in a 6000 year old earth have done, decide that the earth is that age due to their religious beliefs and then looked for evidence to support it? Are there any non-religious people who think the earth is 6000 years old?
Damien, I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're reporting anything here that you have concluded based on your own reading. You're talking in exactly the same sort of third-hand generalities I was trying to pick up the OP for.
Just because you subscribe to the world view of the majority, does not absolve you from trying to understand for yourself what you believe.I believe it from books i've read, shows I have watched, stuff I was taught, and I have the additional comfort of knowing that the vast majority of experts in this field have concluded pretty convincingly that the earth is over 6000 years old by a long, long way. Even history would suggest this is true. Based on the predictions of how long each major civilization lasted, the earth would need to more than 6000 years old.
Of course, I cannot know this first hand. To be honest, very few people can. We do have to believe what others have told us but that does not make our point redundant, we should be able to contribute into the debate without being told we can't because we didn't source that information first hand.
I am not sure if your point was that believing the bible's version of events is no different to believing the scientists view of events since we are no wiser in researching these 'facts' ourself but that is not true. Scientists don't just say what their conclusions are, they back them up with the evidence and the reason why.
I think that, yes, science would not place the age of the earth as a fact but they are very certain that it is over a certain age. A lot of science will never be able to say for sure about anything because 1) you cannot prove a negative 2) a lot of it is based on what science understands now and that is always likely to change. However we can be as certain as humanly possible on some things and evolution and the age of the earth are one of these.
frogstamper
18-05-2008, 20:27
They have had very limited success at this, but by showing that it is possible to construct an alternative hypothesis using only scientific evidence, they have (IMO at least) earned the right to at least a footnote in science classes where the current consensus should still get the lion's share of teaching time ... although I say this with the caveat that schools should do a hell of a lot better than they currently do at explaining what a scientific theory is. Far too many people leave school thinking that humankind understands for certain a lot more about the world than we actually do.
I agree with a lot of your points Chris, as regards the above imo I feel it should be debated in schools, but what I vigourously object to is creationism being taught to children as fact, as you said earlier both evolution and creationism are both theories, and therefore both are open to amendment, but creationism was borne out of religious dogma unlike evolution which has painstakingly accrued evidence and relied on scientific research down the years.
In my opinion what these creationist schools are doing in the US is no different to what either Iranian or Pakistani madrassas are doing. Both are indoctrinating their young, instead of educating them, imo religion should be kept out of the school curriculum, save for explaining the various world religions.
Tezcatlipoca
18-05-2008, 20:31
I'm sure most people have got no problem with it being taught like that.
Indeed.
Creationism = religion.
Evolution = science.
Teach Creationism in Religious Studies / Religious Education lessons, fair enough.
But it has no place whatsoever in science lessons.
downquark1
18-05-2008, 20:56
They have had very limited success at this, but by showing that it is possible to construct an alternative hypothesis using only scientific evidence, they have (IMO at least) earned the right to at least a footnote in science classes where the current consensus should still get the lion's share of teaching time ... although I say this with the caveat that schools should do a hell of a lot better than they currently do at explaining what a scientific theory is. Far too many people leave school thinking that humankind understands for certain a lot more about the world than we actually do.
The intelligent design movement is a number of intelligent and not so intelligent people that make up scientifically sounding arguments to convince the layman the hypothesis has any validity. The issue of irreducible complexity is not new and was used to argue against Darwin, and it would be a good argument, if something was discovered that is irreducibly complex. But when one of the ID proponents will make such a claim in a book or a paper, it will be disputed and usually proven to not be the case. They will then harp on about it for months or years using the same disproven argument to promote their books and their cause. They are not interested in the scientific process, it is merely a system of political spin. As soon as the intelligent design movement (the discovery institute) lost the "Dover" trial, they immediately made press releases to discredit the judge as a liberal activist. Even though this judge was a conservative appointed by the Bush administration.
The mathematical work to try and prove conservation of information is unintelligible to most and myself included, I however would trust the other mathematicians that say it is wrong and doesn't apply to biology.
Bearing that in mind, it simply isn't possible to make the statement that you have just made. The consensus - and therefore the current theory, n.b. not fact, theory, is that Earth is X billion years old. The consensus is that claims that Earth is in fact only X thousand years old do not have sufficient basis in admissable scientific evidence to be taken seriously.
Everything is a current theory, gravitation is a current theory and still has a great many holes in it. Historically however science appears to have been moving towards the "truth" rather than in the wrong direction. It would be a monumental revolution is it was later discovered that the world was only 6000 years old.
---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------
I agree with a lot of your points Chris, as regards the above imo I feel it should be debated in schools
The issues are far too complex to be debated in schools, and when you examine most of the talking points they transpire to be misinformation. Hell I'm doing a physics degree and I don't know enough about biology to understand the issues (I only did biology up to GCSE).
homealone
18-05-2008, 21:01
holes in gravity - could you have a new line of research in mind, there, dq ? :D
According to the scientific method an hypothesis becomes a theory when enough evidence is deemed to support the hypothesis.
The weakness in that is, usually, how the evidence is interpreted, which can lead to false conclusions, sometimes....
In my opinion, trying to get science to 'prove' or 'disprove' religion is futile - and vice versa...
- knowing that Chris will say religion doesn't have to 'prove' itself ;)
- and I don't disagree, all I'd want is that education curricula include all possibilities, not just be confined to one :)
<snip> The consensus - and therefore the current theory, n.b. not fact, theory, is that Earth is X billion years old. <snip>An excellent post Chris, the only part I slightly argue with is that above.....by and large, in order to be able to be called a theory an idea has already been subjected to many tests. It has a lot of supporting evidence and has usually stood the test of time. The only reason it is still called a theory (rather than fact) is that science is always willing to concede that there may be a better explanation as yet undiscovered. In order to become a theory, the idea behind it has jumped through a good few hoops already....
.....it's a bit disingenuous of creationists to come along and say that evolution etc 'is just a theory' ......they are either trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes as to what a scientific theory is or they themselves don't understand what a scientific theory really is....
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence . In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
It could be argued that creationism isn't even a good enough idea to be graced with the title of 'theory'.....
- and I don't disagree, all I'd want is that education curricula include all possibilities, not just be confined to one :)
Well, I want the science curriculum to be dedicated to proper science that has a proper body of evidence backing it up. And ID/Creationism is not that (on both counts imo). Why should time in the science curriculum be dedicated to a theory that cannot boast any papers in peer reviewed journals. To even contemplate the idea is completely bonkers.
downquark1
18-05-2008, 21:22
Just a question. Does anyone remember actually being taught evolution in schools?
I don't, I know my brother has but he's doing A-level biology.
homealone
18-05-2008, 22:04
Well, I want the science curriculum to be dedicated to proper science that has a proper body of evidence backing it up. And ID/Creationism is not that (on both counts imo). Why should time in the science curriculum be dedicated to a theory that cannot boast any papers in peer reviewed journals. To even contemplate the idea is completely bonkers.
well a lot of my assignments started 'compare & contrast', so I'm playing the product of my generation card - which makes me automatically 'bonkers', it seems ;)
greencreeper
18-05-2008, 22:07
I see the forum is a hotbed of well-researched, eloquently-put viewpoints this afternoon. :dozey:
Oh I've done my research - used to attend Sunday School. I've seen the faithful in action. Hell hath no fury like a wrinkled old bag passed over for doing the flowers on Sunday.
Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof of its existence. Like said - half-baked cobblers.
An excellent post Chris, the only part I slightly argue with is that above.....by and large, in order to be able to be called a theory an idea has already been subjected to many tests. It has a lot of supporting evidence and has usually stood the test of time. The only reason it is still called a theory (rather than fact) is that science is always willing to concede that there may be a better explanation as yet undiscovered. In order to become a theory, the idea behind it has jumped through a good few hoops already....
.....it's a bit disingenuous of creationists to come along and say that evolution etc 'is just a theory' ......they are either trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes as to what a scientific theory is or they themselves don't understand what a scientific theory really is....
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
It could be argued that creationism isn't even a good enough idea to be graced with the title of 'theory'.....
Thank you... another couple of observations I will make further to this and some other posts, the first being that the generally accepted view of events that took hold immediately post-Darwin bears very little resemblance to what is held to be the case today. In academics the talk is of 'neo-Darwinism', in recognition of that.
It is entirely possible that the whole scientific community has gone, step by step, down a blind alley, and that a revolution is required in order to get closer to the 'truth'. However because ID is tied into the notion of a deity or other force not subject to scientific method, it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas for the community at large to accept it.
I'm not attempting to tar all scientists with the charge of being less than open-minded, but there is a pretty powerful incentive for ID to get run out of town by any means possible.
Secondly, I think I need to set out the limitations of scientific method. Scientific method by its nature can only have anything to say when it can be tested scientifically. Because God cannot be tested scientifically, science can have nothing to say about God - to prove or to disprove.
It is useful to bear in mind when we have these sorts of discussions on here that it usually turns into a ding-dong when we get to the point where each side is attempting to frame the debate on its own terms.
Just a question. Does anyone remember actually being taught evolution in schools?
I don't, I know my brother has but he's doing A-level biology.
I was taught both evolution and creationism upto GCSE. I then went on to study 3 science A-levels, and a science degree. I'm also Christian*
People will believe what they want to belive. There is more than enough room in the curriculum for both and let people make their own choices. There is no need for the anti-Creationists witchhunts that always seem to go around.
* So was Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics, which underpins most of Darwin's Natural Selection.
I was taught both evolution and creationism upto GCSE. I then went on to study 3 science A-levels, and a science degree. I'm also Christian*
People will believe what they want to belive. There is more than enough room in the curriculum for both and let people make their own choices. There is no need for the anti-Creationists witchhunts that always seem to go around.
* So was Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics, which underpins most of Darwin's Natural Selection.
I don't see why creationism should be taught in science? Until it has more convincing scientific proof it should remain in RE. People can be told both but they need to be told that evolution has the most scientific proof and it should not be represented as "just another theory".
Both sides engage in 'witchhunts' by the way, Creationism has been pushed in some pretty underhanded ways in America. Such as what has been seen in School Boards in places like Texas.
downquark1
18-05-2008, 22:31
It is entirely possible that the whole scientific community has gone, step by step, down a blind alley, and that a revolution is required in order to get closer to the 'truth'. However because ID is tied into the notion of a deity or other force not subject to scientific method, it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas for the community at large to accept it.
You are correct. Even if it is true it is an extremely baron ally of investigation. The hypothesis currently stands as "Someone at sometime did something somewhere". To accept there is a designer would be to then raises the questions, who, where, when and how. Unless these can be expanded on it is a dead end and the end of science.
Secondly, would you rather the scientists researching, sars, bird flu etc. believe that killer strains have adapted from previously understood strains, or it is in fact a new design from a creator who must intend to do harm to sinners or others. If you go down this alley you must define God as a bioterrorist.
To the everyday person these aren't issues but for the professionals these details are essential.
Fortunately, ID is a pile of crap, the templeton foundation agrees, most scientists agree. It is becoming more and more a big joke. There's a new "documentary" movie out in the US called "Expelled: No intelligence allowed" which spends the first half raising the conspiracy theory that intelligent design advocates are being persecuted. Then spends the second half saying darwin is responsible for the holocaust. And low and behold this movie is being promoted on blogs by literally the same people who write the ID papers.
We appear to be moving from Creationism to Intelligent Design in this thread - two completely different concepts (both equally invalid, imho - but completely different).
---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------
I take it you haven't seen it yet?
I haven't but eagerly await it. Although I don't need a documentary to tell me people are harassed, discommunicated or persecuted for their beliefs.
mmmm - bit of a difference between "harassment" and "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", imho. There is (again, imho) a huge difference between "beliefs" and "scientific theory" (as outlined by Rammy in his earlier post). It's when people posit beliefs as scientific theories that the issues arise.
It is entirely possible that the whole scientific community has gone, step by step, down a blind alley, and that a revolution is required in order to get closer to the 'truth'.....it's also entirely possible that your brains have been slowly replaced by your testicles but lets face it, they probably haven't :D However because ID is tied into the notion of a deity or other force not subject to scientific method, it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas for the community at large to accept it.
I'm not attempting to tar all scientists with the charge of being less than open-minded, but there is a pretty powerful incentive for ID to get run out of town by any means possible.
Secondly, I think I need to set out the limitations of scientific method. Scientific method by its nature can only have anything to say when it can be tested scientifically. Because God cannot be tested scientifically, science can have nothing to say about God - to prove or to disprove.
It is useful to bear in mind when we have these sorts of discussions on here that it usually turns into a ding-dong when we get to the point where each side is attempting to frame the debate on its own terms.Thats all very nice but it doesn't really answer my post :p:
mmm - bit of a difference between "harassment" and "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", imho.
If it were just "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", you'd be right, but unfortunately its not. People are suprisingly vicious through their intolerance, when you deign to have an opinion the disagree with. Its McCarthyism all over again. And it doesn't just happen with ID or Creationism, but sceptics of climate change or beliefs about abortion too.
People shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs whether they put them forward as scientific theory or not.
downquark1
18-05-2008, 22:49
I take it you haven't seen it yet?
I haven't but eagerly await it. Although I don't need a documentary to tell me people are harassed, discommunicated or persecuted for their beliefs.
No, I have not seen it yet and I will not pay to see it. I have been watching the promotion and production methods and I will not validate such immoral marketing. The host has been appearing on Christians shows saying things like "I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed"
...
"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. ".
The examples brought forward in the film of excommunication are greatly exaggerated. details here (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth)
We appear to be moving from Creationism to Intelligent Design in this thread - two completely different concepts (both equally invalid, imho - but completely different).
---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------
mmmm - bit of a difference between "harassment" and "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", imho. There is (again, imho) a huge difference between "beliefs" and "scientific theory" (as outlined by Rammy in his earlier post). It's when people posit beliefs as scientific theories that the issues arise.
I think Intelligent Design is included in these conversations because it's seen as an attempt to promote a version of creationism that is not opposed to evolution isn't it? Thus it is more likely to find support?
Good Post, especially with regards to the fact that a belief is different to a scientific theory. I think this is where issues arise, and I don't think creationists can cry foul when their view is not accepted as a scientific theory alongside evolution.
I think a key player in the whole debate is also a increasing trend of atheism in the States and Europe. I think the perception of a country moving away from religion is motivating the creationism and ID camps
If it were just "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", you'd be right, but unfortunately its not. People are suprisingly vicious through their intolerance, when you deign to have an opinion the disagree with. Its McCarthyism all over again. And it doesn't just happen with ID or Creationism, but sceptics of climate change or beliefs about abortion too.
But the thing is that creationists/ID people are trying to force their beliefs to be taught in science classes. I have no problem with people believing in ID. It's is not however a proper scientific theory, and as such should not be taught in science classes. It is religion in disguise. Teach about it in RE. That's fine by me. But not not in Science classes.
downquark1
18-05-2008, 22:53
If it were just "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", you'd be right, but unfortunately its not. People are suprisingly vicious through their intolerance, when you deign to have an opinion the disagree with. Its McCarthyism all over again. And it doesn't just happen with ID or Creationism, but sceptics of climate change or beliefs about abortion too.
Science is not politics. If you overturn an old widely held theory you become more famous and popular. People will disagree of course. Einstein overturned old ideas but still died refusing to accept quantum theory because it would mean giving up his beliefs in determinism.
Unfortunately, unless you are in the field you can't tell who has a genuinely valid idea and who is a charlatan and they will exploit this.
If it were just "please try to prove your position by scientific, peer-reviewed methods", you'd be right, but unfortunately its not. People are suprisingly vicious through their intolerance, when you deign to have an opinion the disagree with. Its McCarthyism all over again. And it doesn't just happen with ID or Creationism, but sceptics of climate change or beliefs about abortion too.
Oh it is not akin to McCarthyism, we are not locking people up or branding them as people to be feared*. It is however an increasing amount of people rejecting creationism, or ID. There are still loads of places that remain skeptical of Climate change but again, there is a increasing amount of support behind the fact it is happening.
I do not see McCathy type treatment of people who believe in creationism. All that seems to be happening is that they are rejected when they try to integrate their beliefs into public life, mainly education, and they treat opposition as if it were intolerance.
Just because it's a belief does not mean it is immune from critics or opposition.
*Also the people who do come into a lot of opposition and attention are the ones pushing creationism in the classrooms, not those who believe it.
well a lot of my assignments started 'compare & contrast', so I'm playing the product of my generation card - which makes me automatically 'bonkers', it seems ;)
Fine with me. But presumably you agree that 'compare and contrast the wave and particle theories of light' is slightly more educational than 'compare and contrast the Newtonian theory of gravity and the theory of intelligent falling'?
Fine with me. But presumably you agree that 'compare and contrast the wave and particle theories of light' is slightly more educational than 'compare and contrast the Newtonian theory of gravity and the theory of intelligent falling'?
Sounds like a sub plot for a Discworld novel.;)
Which has suddenly reminded me of his book Strata..I must dig that out and re read it.
Unfortunately, unless you are in the field you can't tell who has a genuinely valid idea and who is a charlatan and they will exploit this.
Quite. Anyone up for a Flagellum (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)?
....it's also entirely possible that your brains have been slowly replaced by your testicles but lets face it, they probably haven't :D
You're not far wrong, actually. We have a newborn in the house, Mrs T was heavily pregnant for some time before that. I assure you, I think of little else. But that's for another thread. :erm::angel:
Thats all very nice but it doesn't really answer my post :p:Why break the habit of a lifetime? We've been at this, on and off, for something like 5 years now. :D
Sounds like a sub plot for a Discworld novel.;)
Intelligent falling:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 :D
downquark1
18-05-2008, 23:14
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onionmagazine_1020.article.jpg
TheDaddy
18-05-2008, 23:14
* So was Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics, which underpins most of Darwin's Natural Selection.
So was Darwin ;)
<snip> I assure you, I think of little else. But that's for another thread. :erm::angel:
Oh, Go on then. You know we want you to :D
Cobbydaler
19-05-2008, 01:08
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=16302&d=1211155570Well...
I think Creationism and ID should be taught as an option but not as a science yet until we know more about either. Science is constantly learning and disproving itself so there's room for movement. It may come to the point where we will never know enough about them to rival the theory of evolution however that doesn not mean we shouldn't strive for it.
People without the slightest hint of irony are demanding that creationists/IDers have no right of opinion of what goes into the curriculum, and where. Creationists/IDers have as much right to have an opinion and voice it as their opponents, whether you disagree or not. And they also have to right to voice it without the usual villification that they get hit with. While i'm sure its not one-way-traffic, but there are plenty of posts in this thread that highlight the point unfortunately.
People without the slightest hint of irony are demanding that creationists/IDers have no right of opinion of what goes into the curriculum, and where. Creationists/IDers have as much right to have an opinion and voice it as their opponents, whether you disagree or not. And they also have to right to voice it without the usual villification that they get hit with. While i'm sure its not one-way-traffic, but there are plenty of posts in this thread that highlight the point unfortunately.
:clap:
Lucky it's not the Muslim suicide fundamentalists who are demanding Creationism/ID be taught in schools isn't it.....
People without the slightest hint of irony are demanding that creationists/IDers have no right of opinion of what goes into the curriculum, and where. Creationists/IDers have as much right to have an opinion and voice it as their opponents, whether you disagree or not. And they also have to right to voice it without the usual villification that they get hit with. While i'm sure its not one-way-traffic, but there are plenty of posts in this thread that highlight the point unfortunately.
Erm yes, but when someone has a rubbish* idea and they keep going on and on about how (other people's) children should be taught about it, I think they should expect a backlash.
*Let's face it. In it's various guises it is at worst unscientific and at least not supported by empirical evidence. What do you expect? Should people go: 'Yes. that's great: Our science classes should devote time to an idea that is not supported by any evidence because it happens to fit in with your religious beliefs'? Pull the other one.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 11:00
:clap:
Lucky it's not the Muslim suicide fundamentalists who are demanding Creationism/ID be taught in schools isn't it.....
Actually they are at it too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya
Only their reasoning is that evolution is a christian theory made to undermine the Islamic faith in the qua'ran.
People without the slightest hint of irony are demanding that creationists/IDers have no right of opinion of what goes into the curriculum, and where. Creationists/IDers have as much right to have an opinion and voice it as their opponents, whether you disagree or not. And they also have to right to voice it without the usual villification that they get hit with. While i'm sure its not one-way-traffic, but there are plenty of posts in this thread that highlight the point unfortunately. I am not demanding they shut up, I am saying they are wrong, stupid and manipulative phoney car salesmen.
---------- Post added at 11:00 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------
Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixfk4LsKWnw
Erm yes, but when someone has a rubbish* idea and they keep going on and on about how (other people's) children should be taught about it, I think they should expect a backlash.
I am not demanding they shut up, I am saying they are wrong, stupid and manipulative phoney car salesmen.
Right on cue, sadly proves my point.
Noone is saying to have to agree or like everyone else's beliefs, but i'm saying people should have a bit of human decency and respect, and not attack people's beliefs with "backlash"[es] and insults.
As previously stated, I chose a path of science, even with my beliefs. However, i've never resort to backlashes, insults or any other villification methods if I disgagree with any other people's beliefs. There is no justification for it.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 11:14
Right on cue, sadly proves my point.
Noone is saying to have to agree or like everyone else's beliefs, but i'm saying people should have a bit of human decency and respect, and not attack people's beliefs with "backlash"[es] and insults.
As previously stated, I chose a path of science, even with my beliefs. However, i've never resort to backlashes, insults or any other villification methods if I disgagree with any other people's beliefs. There is no justification for it.
I know nothing about cars, if someone sold me a cheap banger and convinced me it was a ferrari. And you came up to me and told me the man was a swindler and I had been duped by a malicious conman would you feel that was was justified?
It is not an issue of belief it is an issue of science. Unless you want to throw all epistemology out the window. But that won't get food grown and planes flying.
Right on cue, sadly proves my point.
Noone is saying to have to agree or like everyone else's beliefs, but i'm saying people should have a bit of human decency and respect, and not attack people's beliefs with "backlash"[es] and insults.
As previously stated, I chose a path of science, even with my beliefs. However, i've never resort to backlashes, insults or any other villification methods if I disgagree with any other people's beliefs. There is no justification for it.
And as I've said before. I have no problems with people who believe in ID. What I have a problem with is people that want ID being taught in Science classes (and let's face it, they are rather vocal about it). It's religion, not Science. On the subject of insults, I find the suggestion that my kids (if I had any) should be taught about your religion in science classes insulting.
I know nothing about cars, if someone sold me a cheap banger and convinced me it was a ferrari. And you came up to me and told me the man was a swindler and I had been duped by a malicious conman would you feel that was was justified?
Unfortunately that analogy is entirely twisted to suit your position and suitably loaded.
A better one would be two cars sold by two different people to try suit the same purpose. One person says theirs fits better because of X and W, and someone else says theirs does because of Y and Z. Ultimately the choice is the buyer's and so long as they are happy with whatever their informed choice is, that's the main thing. Its a free country. Its up to you to 'save' them.
However the fact that you don't trust people to make an informed choice shows you have a similar amount of disdain for the general public as you do with creationists and IDers.
---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------
On the subject of insults, I find the suggestion that my kids (if I had any) should be taught about your religion in science classes insulting.
That's extremely reaching. Whether someone believes creationism or ID should be a part of science really has no bearing on your family. As you are allowed an opinion, people are allowed to have a contrary opinion to you. This isn't China.
That's extremely reaching. Whether someone believes creationism or ID should be a part of science really has no bearing on your family. As you are allowed an opinion, people are allowed to have a contrary opinion to you. This isn't China.
How does it not have a bearing on my family if people try to slip it into my children's education under the guise of science?
Who is?
Teachers teach the curriculum. Its not on the science curriculum, and probably never will be. Shouldn't stop people from expressing an opinion about it. You'll find a lot of people will have opinions you disagree with. For example some people think executing people is the best way of achieving justice. Just because I disagree doesn't mean they shouldn't get near my son.
Besides, if its all just nonsense, then why are you so worried? Surely your kid will see through it?
downquark1
19-05-2008, 11:53
However the fact that you don't trust people to make an informed choice shows you have a similar amount of disdain for the general public as you do with creationists and IDers.
Ok, allow me to demonstrate.
fact 1
Putting margarine (0.5 grams per litre of petrol) in ones petrol tank will increase your fuel efficiency as the carbon polymers act as a natural catalyst to the octane combustion. This is a complicated process involving van der walls forces. But the build up on the engine is damaging over time which is why is it not recommended.
fact 2
Cooling helium to 1.6K will cause the liquid to climb out of any open top container you put it in. Assuming it is kept at that temperature it will escape the lab trying to find the lowest point it can access. This is a complicated process involving zero viscosity and quantum mechanics.
One of these things are tried and tested true. The other I made up stringing some scientific sounding words together. Please choose the correct one.
I am not demanding they shut up, I am saying they are wrong, stupid and manipulative phoney car salesmen.
As a Creationist, I can only thank you for that :tu:
Who is?
Errrm. There's a rather vocal lot in the US that want it taught in Science classes. There have been court cases over it. It's not just a hypothetical situation (well, not in the US anyway). It's what this thread is about...
Teachers teach the curriculum. Its not on the science curriculum, and probably never will be. Shouldn't stop people from expressing an opinion about it. You'll find a lot of people will have opinions you disagree with. For example some people think executing people is the best way of achieving justice. Just because I disagree doesn't mean they shouldn't get near my son.
See above. The thread is about children being taught about ID. What people's personal opinions about the death penalty (or anything else for that matter) are has absolutely no relevance to it.
Besides, if its all just nonsense, then why are you so worried? Surely your kid will see through it?
No. Children are impressionable and not able to weigh up the pros and cons as well as adults. Yes, I think it is nonsense, but I don't think the idea has no intuitive appeal. So, I prefer science education to stick to the common scientific opinion rather than religion based speculation. Mind you, I do think there is a good point to be made for more education on philosophy of science and proper scientific methods. As it is, science graduates don't get taught enough about it in my opinion.
frogstamper
19-05-2008, 13:00
Ive got absolutely no problem with id/creationism being discussed in RE lessons in school, as like most if not all things religious its a belief, there should be no room at all for this belief in a scientific classroom. It just amazes me how otherwise intelligent people can convince themselves that this hogwash can be true, 6000-10000 years as the Earths age!! I mean how long did the plant take to cool... this is obviously a religious fable like Genesis, it should be kept in the RE class not the Science class.
There has long since been an almost requirement of smugness and one-upmanship in science, along with a neccessity to insult and patronise those with different views, using such words as 'hogwash', 'stupid' and 'manipulative phoney car salesmen', therefore it's no surprise that it appears on CF.
I really don't see why people can't be respectful to those with differing views. There's nothing wrong with disagreement. But it's almost as if some people feel they have to insult others, lest it looks like they are agreeing with or endorsing their views.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 13:44
There are different views and then there are facts. A car salesman may tell me that he thinks a car is suitable for me, or he may tell me that a ford fiesta is a Ferrari.
If two engineers are standing in front of a plane, one says to the other "I don't think this plane will fly". The other engineer gets in the plane, takes off, does 3 consecutive barrow rolls and lands safely. He gets outs and the other engineer says. "Look I don't think this plane will fly and you have to respect my belief on that".
Science is about collecting evidence to disprove your own or another view and depending on the field it is often a matter of life and death.
The medical industry needs to make efforts to ensure diseases do not evolve beyond our capability of control. To do this they must actually accept that things evolve. To accept that they are intelligently designed means that medical industry must search for ways to kill or hinder the designer.
---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------
Educational, although admittedly smug Videos
Award winning documentary on the intelligent design Dover trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/)
Hot chicks discuss evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs)
AronRa set of videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=AronRa)
Don Exodus (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2)
As for my challenge, I will give it another few hours and then tell you the answer.
Ok, allow me to demonstrate.
You're attacking a straw man there DQ1. You seem to have missed my quite extensive scientific background mentioned in my posts like you miss my point in them. You don't need to lecture me on the importance of science, it forms my entire career.
I'll try and be as blunt (and clear) as I can. Whether creationists/IDers want their beliefs/theories in science lessons, in RE lessons, in plane banners flown across the sky, or in Christmas crackers is up to them. Its their choice. You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
It has nothing to do with science, but being a decent, respectful human being. If still aren't going agree then there's really not much else to say.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 14:13
You're attacking a straw man there DQ1. You seem to have missed my quite extensive scientific background mentioned in my posts like you miss my point in them. You don't need to lecture me on the importance of science, it forms my entire career.
I'll try and be as blunt (and clear) as I can. Whether creationists/IDers want their beliefs/theories in science lessons, in RE lessons, in plane banners flown across the sky, or in Christmas crackers is up to them. Its their choice. You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
It has nothing to do with science, but being a decent, respectful human being. If still aren't going agree then there's really not much else to say.
You said
Besides, if its all just nonsense, then why are you so worried? Surely your kid will see through it? My example was to demonstrate that you cannot simply see through nonsense. I don't see through the nonsense, I have been watching creationist videos for roughly a year and I need to check and reference things in order to see through the nonsense. I am however learning rhetoric tricks, not science.
This is not acceptable in an education system. A child should be able to put some reasonable trust into what they are told in an official capacity, otherwise you get factual relativism and a government, corporation or organisation can make up any old thing as long as it supports their agenda. And the media wanting to appear fair and balanced are more than willing to give them voices.
You only need to watch a show like QI to see how many false "facts" and misconceptions have penetrated so deeply into society. There are always wrong ideas taught that need revision, new theories that need to be learnt but why just complicate matters by allowing already discredited ones to spread? This is not damaging for the average person, but if doctors who care for the sick put their pet theory in action and it turns out to be wrong they will not only loose their job but end up in prison. If an engineer deviates into untested aerodynamics and causes an accident he will and should be held responsible for his actions.
If I start a website claiming cable forum was founded by a man called Russ in 2006 as a site for baldness apologetics I would be spreading something I knew was incorrect and you would be well within your rights to vilify me.
PS: Fact 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI&feature=related) is correct. There is plenty of wondrous mystery in the world without having to invent it.
If I start a website claiming cable forum was founded by a man called Russ in 2006 as a site for baldness apologetics I would be spreading something I knew was incorrect and you would be well within your rights to vilify me.
Common decency says he is free to disagree with you, but not insult you for it.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 14:43
Common decency says he is free to disagree with you, but not insult you for it.
Perhaps I'm just intolerant but I would have to disagree. Unless it was a joke, I would have lied and being called a lyer would be fair and prudent.
You're attacking a straw man there DQ1. You seem to have missed my quite extensive scientific background mentioned in my posts like you miss my point in them. You don't need to lecture me on the importance of science, it forms my entire career.
I'll try and be as blunt (and clear) as I can. Whether creationists/IDers want their beliefs/theories in science lessons, in RE lessons, in plane banners flown across the sky, or in Christmas crackers is up to them. Its their choice. You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
It has nothing to do with science, but being a decent, respectful human being. If still aren't going agree then there's really not much else to say.
Scientists and educational experts decide what is taught in Science, Respecting creationists does not mean putting in science because they want it there. It is not Science it is a belief. Peoples views are not equal, at least not in science and if we teach what Christians want in science then what's to stop other faiths and beliefs from demanding their version of events is taught?
Only theories which compelling scientific evidence should be taught in science
As a teacher I'm with Damien on this one.If I had to teach the twaddle that is creationism or ID in science I'd have to give up teaching.I believe in giving the facts but not untruths not for anyone's feelings or beliefs.
To call a belief a theory does not give it credence as science.Sorry.
OK, one more, last, time.
You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
I'm not saying it creationism/ID has to be put into science. I NEVER have. I just have this naive notion that maybe, just maybe even though we are all different, with different opinions, that we could just be nice to one another for a change.
OK, one more, last, time for the people at the back.
You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
Am I speaking french here or something? I'm not saying it creationism/ID has to be put into science. I NEVER have. I just have this naive notion that maybe, just maybe even though we are all different, with different opinions, that we could just be nice to one another for a change.
Hey I respect their right to believe in an unsound non scientific non theory BUT they aren't going to get me to lie to students for the sake of their beliefs.
OK, one more, last, time.
You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
I'm not saying it creationism/ID has to be put into science. I NEVER have. I just have this naive notion that maybe, just maybe even though we are all different, with different opinions, that we could just be nice to one another for a change.
I don't care what people believe, I do care when it enters a political or social context and this is what the topic is about. People have believed in a god for years, I have religious family members, I went to a religious school. Out of all the things people believe, Christianity is not exactly harmful.
I do have a problem when it is pushed into schools, and when films like Expelled bring it into a debate and then complain when their views are dismissed as without merit as if this were persecution of their beliefs.
I went on the movie site, and his point seems to be that since Darwin's theory (again, using theory to suggest it's no different from the theory of ID) cannot explain were life began that it is somehow flawed and that science is flawed since it has not found an answer.
He even has a Interview with Bill O'Reilly in which ol Bill calls us atheists 'pinheads' who have had our chance to explain the creation of life and so what is wrong with teaching ID.
That is what I have a problem with, not people who believe god created the earth.
<snippety>
That is what I have a problem with, not people who believe god created the earth.
Quite. And I think that is the way a lot of people see it. I do respect it if people want to belief God created the earth. Pushing non-scientific speculation as science while misrepresenting proper science however gains very little respect from me.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 18:17
OK, one more, last, time.
You don't have to like or agree with it, but they should be respected for it, rather than just villified and insulted.
I'm not saying it creationism/ID has to be put into science. I NEVER have. I just have this naive notion that maybe, just maybe even though we are all different, with different opinions, that we could just be nice to one another for a change.
Please, please, watch some of these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg). I am not vilifying people who hold these beliefs in private. I am vilifying the spin artists that are manipulative and either liars or preaching their ignorance as scientific fact.
The creation "scientist" Kent Hovind doctors photos to show that fossil remains of giants have been found (because they are mentioned in the bible). He lies about holding a doctored and being a high school science teacher. I have watched creationist videos that pack falsehoods so thick that 2 mins of footage requires 10 minutes of clarification.
Pushing non-scientific speculation as science while misrepresenting proper science however gains very little respect from me.
Indeed, thats the heart of the matter :tu:
I am not vilifying people who hold these beliefs in private.
So you're ok with me and my beliefs as long as I don't talk about them in public? Yes, I think you were right when you said you might be intolerant. In fact I'm sure of it.
downquark1
19-05-2008, 19:00
So you're ok with me and my beliefs as long as I don't talk about them in public? Yes, I think you were right when you said you might be intolerant. In fact I'm sure of it.
You don't go around claiming to have to have found this and that. Claiming that:
carbon dating is unreliable,
that fossilised transitional forms are fake,
that the second law of thermodynamics is somehow proof that evolution is impossible,
the bacterial pygeum irreducibly complex,
that the bible is the most scientifically accurate book around,
the bible predicted atomic weapons,
that no known beneficial mutations have been found,
that darwin beat up puppies,
that einstein was a devote theist,
that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man,
that evolution leads to genocide.
man lived hundreds of years in biblical time
science leads to killing people
that information is some sort of divine quantity
the human race is deteriorating, getting shorter etc
the conservation of angular momentum somehow disproves the big bang
So you're ok with me and my beliefs as long as I don't talk about them in public? Yes, I think you were right when you said you might be intolerant. In fact I'm sure of it.
I don't think that was was said or implied Russ.You know I will defend your rights to your faith..and I'll even teach RE with respect towards those beliefs and those of other religions.However I'm not going to teach Creationism or ID as fact in a science lesson.I'll offer it as a belief in a religious lesson and one among many.However I would never teach evolution in a RE lesson..It's not the place.
You don't go around claiming to have to have found this and that. Claiming that:
carbon dating is unreliable,
that fossilised transitional forms are fake,
that the second law of thermodynamics is somehow proof that evolution is impossible,
the bacterial pygeum irreducibly complex,
that the bible is the most scientifically accurate book around,
the bible predicted atomic weapons,
that no known beneficial mutations have been found,
that darwin beat up puppies,
that einstein was a devote theist,
that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man,
that evolution leads to genocide.
man lived hundreds of years in biblical time
science leads to killing people
that information is some sort of divine quantity
the human race is deteriorating, getting shorter etc
the conservation of angular momentum somehow disproves the big bang
Punky was talking about Creationists (of which I am one and am proud to be) to which you replied...
I am not demanding they shut up, I am saying they are wrong, stupid and manipulative phoney car salesmen
...which is rude, arrogant and ignorant. If you were referring to the far-right Americans who have been referred to elsewhere in this thread then you should make your posts clearer. You've already suggested you might be intolerant (kudos for admitting that), I'm backing you up, based on what your posts appear to say.
I have made my views on teaching Creationism in schools petty clear in this thread. Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with my view I have the right to hold it without being insulted or having my sanity questioned. Think what you will in private but in public you should either disagree yet be civil and respectful or give up on common decency altogether.
Russ, Talking about those who promote creationism in public life, are you saying they should not be challenged and their views should not examined and, as happens, debunked in terms of science?
We are saying that those in America trying to get creationism on par with Evolution in science often lie and misrepresent their arguments in order to achieve that goal. They should not be given a free pass to do so under the guise of respecting their beliefs
downquark1
19-05-2008, 19:40
...which is rude, arrogant and ignorant. If you were referring to the far-right Americans who have been referred to elsewhere in this thread then you should make your posts clearer.
I have made my views on teaching Creationism in schools petty clear in this thread. Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with my view I have the right to hold it without being insulted or having my sanity questioned. Think what you will in private but in public you should either disagree yet be civil and respectful or give up on common decency altogether.
I apologise for not being clearer, I thought my reference to the dodgy car salesman made it clear I was only referring to those that are "selling the science" and having finance or political gain.
This is not limited to America, there is an organisation in Britain called "truth in science", which send this material to schools.
I am only trying to convey my experience of the shear absurdity of this manufactured issue and that is a great deal of misinformation out there. Were we having a scientific discussion, someone could raise one issue and I could challenge it, however since we are talking about this creation science in general I am forced to merely point out the general dishonestly I have seen, as to list some of the issues as I did above would be boring and inaccessible to some.
Take this expelled documentary. They lied to several scientists including Richard Dawkins to get interviews. The excuses from this have varied from "so what?" (paraphrased) to they were originally making a neutral movie and discovered the persecution and then changed to the name from crossroads to expelled. This is not consistent as the website domain name for expelled was already registered.
The scientist and founder of the sceptic society Michael Shermer was also interviewed for the movie and says he was repeated asked the same questions until he grew impatient and said "Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?"
When one of the scientists, a biologist called PZ Myers (he is thanked in the credits), applied to go see the film he turned up and was asked to leave by security at the request of the producer. After he did so he blogged the experience which created a larger controversy amongst bloggers.
The reasons for the expulsion varied from, he was an uninvited gatecrasher (an apparent untruth), to it was an decision by the producer to create publicity on the blogosphere, so nothing more than a stunt to make money.
To do all this and claim to be a persecuted minority smells bad.
Russ, Talking about those who promote creationism in public life, are you saying they should not be challenged and their views should not examined and, as happens, debunked in terms of science?
If people are intent on proving certain individuals wrong then fine, all the best to them and I have no issue with that. What I do take issue with (and as I've already said) is when said people take it on themselves to be insulting, arrogant and ignorant to those who dare hold opposing views.
We are saying that those in America trying to get creationism on par with Evolution in science often lie and misrepresent their arguments in order to achieve that goal. They should not be given a free pass to do so under the guise of respecting their beliefs
As I've said, I have no problem with beliefs being challenged as long as it can be done respectfully which is something many pro-evolutionists seem to have trouble doing.
Dammit my pager must be faulty!
Has anyone mentioned intelligent falling yet?
Has anyone mentioned intelligent falling yet?
Yes. (Twice) :)
homealone
19-05-2008, 21:01
Dammit my pager must be faulty!
Has anyone mentioned intelligent falling yet?
yes - and the spaghetti monster ;)
frogstamper
19-05-2008, 21:02
Dammit my pager must be faulty!
Has anyone mentioned intelligent falling yet?
I must say Xaccers I was expecting an appearance from you earlier on this subject,;)
yes - and the spaghetti monster ;)
Flying spaghetti monster, be respectful now ;)
Thankfully (so far) the UK has people with more common sense than the US, and so the likelihood of ID being taught in schools as science is much smaller.
Heck, I knew a yank who'd been taught (about 5 years ago now) that condoms were riddled with holes which HIV is able to pass through in biology class!
I'm a scientist, and I loath people who spread mistruths and blatant lies.
I can't help but set them straight where I can, it'd be the same if someone went around saying F=MA is absolutely true, or got some film factoid wrong.
It just irks me.
At school this caused some interesting conversations with some of my teachers (for which I respect them greatly) as they were teaching "lies to children" as required by the silibus.
I wanted to know the true electron orbits of atoms, not the nice circular orbits (2,8,8) we were being taught for example.
If someone had tried to teach me ID in science, I'd have walked out of class in disgust and spent my time in the library re-reading a breif history of time until that topic had passed.
I've had creationists claim to me that before the flood plant life on the planet was watered by sea mists, there was a canopy of water held up by the thermosphere, after all it has a temperature of 3000F and heat is able to keep balloons up right? Pointing out that temperature is a measure of particle energy, meaning that although the particles in the thermosphere are wizzing around with a temperature of 3000F it wouldn't feel like it, and what was stopping the water canopy boiling off into the vacuum of space? Of course that couldn't be answered because most people don't know enough or ask enough, they're just meant to think "Ah yes, hot air makes things rise, so very hot could keep water up" and accept it as fact.
frogstamper
19-05-2008, 21:37
The truly sad thing is the amount of Americans who do believe this dogma, 47% believe God made man in his present form in the last 10000 years, 40% believe man has developed over millions of years, but with Gods guidance, after he created man, and only 9% believe man has evolved over millions of years, and that God played no part. The full survey as to what Americans believe is here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)
downquark1
19-05-2008, 21:49
they're just meant to think "Ah yes, hot air makes things rise, so very hot could keep water up" and accept it as fact.
There seems to be an industry of this sort of BS cropping up. Brain gym in schools, electrosensitive paranoia. It is of course nothing new however the marketing of these issues are becoming more sophisticated and it almost seems more profitable for media to buy into the showmanship rather than explain the issues.
Every week we get reports that begin with "Scientists say", either followed by something absurd, frightening or miraculous. I really must write an article that says something like "journalists say Madeline Mccane's parents killed their daughter" and wait for the libel claims.
The other week it was that story of the man who "grew back" his finger, a few hours after it was published and a scientists were blogging how they thought it was wildly exaggerated. And low and behold it was.
And then on political issues like the embryo bill, you on the news a statement from a researcher saying it will aid research and medical knowledge, and then a statement from someone from some organisation with a phD saying it will not aid research and medical knowledge. No mention of why they disagree, just "X is 5" and "no X is 6".
With all this, contradictory health advise, contradictory "global warming" reports it really is no wonder people become so rigidly agnostic on issues.
Tezcatlipoca
19-05-2008, 21:59
Dammit my pager must be faulty!
Has anyone mentioned intelligent falling yet?
Both that & the FSM in post 10 ;)
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34554803-post10.html
homealone
19-05-2008, 22:00
To an extent I don't think the evolutionist, creationist, ID, questions should be polarised into 'science' or 'religion' - I don't personally think that science will ever explain the concept of a creator, any more than religion can explain the concept that iron in our blood was once formed in a star
http://www.newsobserver.com/150/story/1073193.html
Many of the substances listed on the periodic table of elements, including the iron in our blood and the calcium in our bones, were forged in supernova explosions, Reynolds said.
- what I do think is that we should be able to discuss the various opinions we have without any disrespect for having expressed them, so I endorse Russ' comments on that ..
- I especially think that children shouldn't be taught 'what to think', but rather be taught 'how to think', then be shown the alternatives & let them make their own minds up - but that is me being naiive, especially in the middle of SATS :)
To an extent I don't think the evolutionist, creationist, ID, questions should be polarised into 'science' or 'religion' - I don't personally think that science will ever explain the concept of a creator, any more than religion can explain the concept that iron in our blood was once formed in a star
http://www.newsobserver.com/150/story/1073193.html
- what I do think is that we should be able to discuss the various opinions we have without any disrespect for having expressed them, so I endorse Russ' comments on that ..
- I especially think that children shouldn't be taught 'what to think', but rather be taught 'how to think', then be shown the alternatives & let them make their own minds up - but that is me being naiive, especially in the middle of SATS :)
Oh don't..Not SATS
- I especially think that children shouldn't be taught 'what to think', but rather be taught 'how to think', then be shown the alternatives & let them make their own minds up - but that is me being naiive, especially in the middle of SATS :)
They can be taught how to value a source, the difference between science and faith, and the scientific process. They can be taught evolution in science and creationism in RE, during RE they can explain that evolution is based on current scientific knowledge and evidence while creationism is based on faith.
If they then decide that evolution does not answer their questions on creation (it's doesnt, but it is not meant too) then by all means the student may turn to creatonism.
What is not right is putting them as equally valid theorys in the context of science, they are simply not. Doing so it is maniuplating science to 'trick' kids into believing what is essentailly a belief and is giving kids a false impression of what science is and what a faith is.
Science classes teach science, they are not to be used as a social tool. I don't care if 99% of the population wants it taught in Science, it's not science, it will not be taught in science unless it is backed up.
Science classes teach science, they are not to be used as a social tool. I don't care if 99% of the population wants it taught in Science, it's not science, it will not be taught in science unless it is backed up.
Exactly, you wouldn't expect needlecraft to be taught in science, so why ID?
homealone
20-05-2008, 00:15
They can be taught how to value a source, the difference between science and faith, and the scientific process. They can be taught evolution in science and creationism in RE, during RE they can explain that evolution is based on current scientific knowledge and evidence while creationism is based on faith.
If they then decide that evolution does not answer their questions on creation (it's doesnt, but it is not meant too) then by all means the student may turn to creatonism.
What is not right is putting them as equally valid theorys in the context of science, they are simply not. Doing so it is maniuplating science to 'trick' kids into believing what is essentailly a belief and is giving kids a false impression of what science is and what a faith is.
Science classes teach science, they are not to be used as a social tool. I don't care if 99% of the population wants it taught in Science, it's not science, it will not be taught in science unless it is backed up.
I'm not sure that is what I meant, I wanted to mean we should teach all possible scenarios, vis a vis 'why we are here?', then each person can decide for themselves what they believe is relevant, for them :angel:
Tezcatlipoca
20-05-2008, 00:30
Thanks be to Tony Blair & faith schools! :mad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1975933/Christian-fundamentalists-fighting-spiritual-battle-in-Parliament.html
(snip)
One little girl has to do a science test. A classroom assistant kneels next to her, takes her hand and says: "We pray, Father, that you'll help her check all her spellings. In Jesus's name, Amen."
The test is multiple choice. Question five is: "God made the world in [BLANK] days." The options are "five, six or seven". The six-year-old carefully writes "six". The right answer.
This scene would be surprising enough if the school were in America's Bible Belt, but the voices around me are English, and we're in Bristol.
(snip)
The uncompromising creationist curriculum taught in Carmel has been imported from the US. It is called Accelerated Christian Education; the motto of the Florida-based company who produce it is: "Reaching the world for Christ, one child at a time."
With 50 small schools in the UK teaching this curriculum, a total of more than 2,000 children are being "reached for Christ". Yet these schools are not operating outside the education system. Carmel is a government-endorsed faith school, complete with an Ofsted report that describes the teaching as "satisfactory".
According to the head teacher, David Owens, it's all thanks to a Labour prime minister. "Tony Blair opened the door in the debate on faith schools," he explains. "So it's time for people like us to strike while the iron is hot."
(snip)
I'm not sure that is what I meant, I wanted to mean we should teach all possible scenarios, vis a vis 'why we are here?', then each person can decide for themselves what they believe is relevant, for them :angel:
'Why we are here', or 'how come we are here'? I don't think many scientists will claim science can provide an answer to the first question, which kind of rules out discussion of that question in science classes. Also, should the flying spaghetti monster be included in 'all possible scenarios' (and if not where do we draw the line between what should and should not be included)?
Thanks be to Tony Blair & faith schools! :mad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1975933/Christian-fundamentalists-fighting-spiritual-battle-in-Parliament.html
A news item based on Monday night's Dispatches on C4 ... if anything the Tele piece is even more rabidly anti-Christian than the documentary was.
I fail to understand how he can get so hot under the collar about Christian citizens in a democratic country using the available democratic means to put across their view.
And as for the schools .... "grown-ups encourage children to pray and trust in God shocker". As if the human race hasn't been doing so in one way or another for millennia. As if most of the human race isn't *still* doing it.
I fail to understand how he can get so hot under the collar about Christian citizens in a democratic country using the available democratic means to put across their view.
Isn't that like saying 'The BNP is nothing to worry about since they use the available democratic means'?
No, seeing as Britain hasn't been brought up on BNP values for years.
Isn't that like saying 'The BNP is nothing to worry about since they use the available democratic means'?
My goodness, isn't it a little early in the morning for straw men like that? :dozey:
However, seeing as you asked:
I dislike the BNP intensely, but as long as they are using the democratic process, we have to just get along with it.
If we 'fine-tune' democracy to exclude groups we don't like of having their say, then we don't live in a democracy any more.
I fail to understand how he can get so hot under the collar about Christian citizens in a democratic country using the available democratic means to put across their view.
Because Science is not a democratic process, it is not up to the majority of the population what should be in taught in Science. Therefore their attempts to get ID taught in Science despite the fact it has not gone though the same tests as Evolution and has little scientific merit other than 'it makes sense to us' is something that worries people.
And as for the schools .... "grown-ups encourage children to pray and trust in God shocker". As if the human race hasn't been doing so in one way or another for millennia. As if most of the human race isn't *still* doing it.It's the fact that it is taking place in schools that is the worry; the state should not be used to favour a religion, any religion, by encouraging it in the education system. A time when children are especially impressionable and have trust in their teachers to tell them about the world, using this to promote creationism and/or god is a massive abuse of that trust.
Teaching it in RE under the correct context I.E "It's a faith and an idea into how life may have began based on the Christain Religion" is fine. Teaching it in Science under the context of Science I.E "There is evolution, but that's just a theory, there is also creationism/intelligent design and they are also theories, all of which have equal merit" is not.
My goodness, isn't it a little early in the morning for straw men like that? :dozey:
However, seeing as you asked:
I dislike the BNP intensely, but as long as they are using the democratic process, we have to just get along with it.
If we 'fine-tune' democracy to exclude groups we don't like of having their say, then we don't live in a democracy any more.
It's not a straw man at all. It's an analogy. The reason I posted it is that there can be perfectly valid reasons for 'getting hot under the collar' about people using the democratic process. I agree that we shouldn't fine-tune the political process (In fact I favour Proportional Representation, which would probably give parties like the BNP more power). However, it is just as much part of the democratic process that we can oppose those we disagree with.
---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------
No, seeing as Britain hasn't been brought up on BNP values for years.
Britain hasn't been brought up on fundamentalist christian values for years either.
Britain hasn't been brought up on fundamentalist christian values for years either.
No? Who do you think is responsible for those pesky sunday trading laws?
No? Who do you think is responsible for those pesky sunday trading laws?
I suppose it depends on your definition of fundamentalist.
No? Who do you think is responsible for those pesky sunday trading laws?
I knew it! *Gets Pitchfork
Because Science is not a democratic process, it is not up to the majority of the population what should be in taught in Science. Therefore their attempts to get ID taught in Science despite the fact it has not gone though the same tests as Evolution and has little scientific merit other than 'it makes sense to us' is something that worries people.
It's the fact that it is taking place in schools that is the worry; the state should not be used to favour a religion, any religion, by encouraging it in the education system. A time when children are especially impressionable and have trust in their teachers to tell them about the world, using this to promote creationism and/or god is a massive abuse of that trust.
Teaching it in RE under the correct context I.E "It's a faith and an idea into how life may have began based on the Christain Religion" is fine. Teaching it in Science under the context of Science I.E "There is evolution, but that's just a theory, there is also creationism/intelligent design and they are also theories, all of which have equal merit" is not.
Damien, all of the above suggests to me that you didn't watch Dispatches on Monday night and that you might not have read the Telegraph article Matt linked to either. My post was in response to that and is a fair bit broader than the original thread topic. In that context your reply doesn't make much sense, however let me address the points you're raising anyway:
1. The school curriculum is established democratically. All of it, including science. In state schools in England there is a national curriculum; in independent schools there is more freedom for the school's own governors and teaching staff to set it. However governors and the government are all subject to parents, whether by the ballot box or by cheque book ("we'll simply take little Johnny elsewhere if we don't like your curriculum"). You are getting yourself confused between how scientific ideas are generated, tested and approved or rejected, and how we decide what we teach our children in the short time available to them.
2. If you're so mad keen on separation of church and state, and total secularisation of schools, then move to France. ;) Seriously, it can't have escaped your attention that we have leaders of all the main religions sitting in the Lords, *entirely because* they are leaders of a main religion? You need to accept that things are the way they are because people generally are happy with it. That's democracy. It's your democratic right to campaign for change, but in the meantime don't waste your time being astonished at how things currently stand.
3. Abuse of trust ... those are very strong words. This is where I wish you'd stopped to think about what it was you were replying to before you started typing. The children in the documentary, and referred to in the Telegraph article, were at a school run by a church. They are there because that is the education their parents want for them. So exactly whose trust is being abused?
4. At the very end of your post you offer a parody of a supposed creationist science lesson. I'd be interested in what you base this on. Not least because, talking as we are about the entire school curriculum, you need to consider that the way you teach science and RE to seven-year-olds is not the same way as you do for 17-year-olds.
---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------
I<snippage> However, it is just as much part of the democratic process that we can oppose those we disagree with.
Indeed it is, but in the context of the Dispatches documentary, which is what I was referring to, the film-maker was not so much 'opposing' or 'disagreeing' with the Christians, as being aghast and offended that they should be making use of the democratic process themselves.
Democracy means you let someone have their say, then you combat their ideas by showing your own to be better/more useful/whatever. It does not mean waging a whispering campaign designed to make us think 'them' having 'their' say means there is something wrong with democracy in Britain.
Indeed it is, but in the context of the Dispatches documentary, which is what I was referring to, the film-maker was not so much 'opposing' or 'disagreeing' with the Christians, as being aghast and offended that they should be making use of the democratic process themselves.
Democracy means you let someone have their say, then you combat their ideas by showing your own to be better/more useful/whatever. It does not mean waging a whispering campaign designed to make us think 'them' having 'their' say means there is something wrong with democracy in Britain.
I didn't see the Dispatches Documentary, so I can't comment on that. However, it sounds like the film-maker was aghast at the level of freedom the democratic process allows faith schools in setting their curriculum, and that is something which doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I didn't see the Dispatches Documentary, so I can't comment on that. However, it sounds like the film-maker was aghast at the level of freedom the democratic process allows faith schools in setting their curriculum, and that is something which doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I fail to see the issue. The parents will be aware of what goes on in a faith school. If they object to it, and they had no other option but to send their children there then surely they are welcome to give their own version of science, evolution?
Unless people are objecting to the principle of someone being taught views an theories which are different from their own?
Damien, all of the above suggests to me that you didn't watch Dispatches on Monday night and that you might not have read the Telegraph article Matt linked to either. My post was in response to that and is a fair bit broader than the original thread topic. In that context your reply doesn't make much sense, however let me address the points you're raising anyway:
Ok, I missed the reference to the documentary. I had not seen it. So I did address most of that post to the overall topic of the thread.
but in answer to those posts:
1. The school curriculum is established democratically. All of it, including science. In state schools in England there is a national curriculum; in independent schools there is more freedom for the school's own governors and teaching staff to set it. However governors and the government are all subject to parents, whether by the ballot box or by cheque book ("we'll simply take little Johnny elsewhere if we don't like your curriculum"). You are getting yourself confused between how scientific ideas are generated, tested and approved or rejected, and how we decide what we teach our children in the short time available to them.
I don't think I am getting confused at all. The way scientific ideas are generated is what matters in Science and along with what they find out. There are a lot of untested hypothesis about creation, life, space, and the universe. We only teach the ones we have some understanding off and those that have gone beyond simply hypothesis and into some sort of understanding. We don't teach the Phoenix theory of how the universe came into being (space expands, contracts, explodes, and the process starts again) because, although neat, this is merely an idea scientists have had that has little evidence for yet.
Creationism/ID are the same, there is no scientific understanding/testing of this theory and there are few scientists who back it. That's not to say there is outright rejection of a creator in science, just that it cannot be proven nor disproven and hence is not part of the scientific curriculum. The curriculum covers what we understand about biology, physics and geology. It never stays into hypothesis or one of the million ideas people have that may be true but we have no way of knowing that yet.
Also, democratically, the people decide the course of education but they do not decide the individual curriculum. For example, we may decide to reject the overwhelming amount of examinations children are put though, we may decide to switch from the GCSE system to a international baccalaureate system. However Mathematicians decide the maths curriculum and scientists will decide the science curriculum. I can’t think of an example, although you may have one, where these people are overridden by a democratic will.
2. If you're so mad keen on separation of church and state, and total secularisation of schools, then move to France. Seriously, it can't have escaped your attention that we have leaders of all the main religions sitting in the Lords, *entirely because* they are leaders of a main religion? You need to accept that things are the way they are because people generally are happy with it. That's democracy. It's your democratic right to campaign for change, but in the meantime don't waste your time being astonished at how things currently stand.
Well in the UK we do not have creationism in Science so most of my posts are written with the American education system in mind where the curriculum is at danger from a demand from the Christian right to each creationism in science, against the will of the majority of scientists and scientist teachers. Again, the scientists are the ones who should decide science teaching, not the public.
For the most part this country is not religious at state level, in that although your point about the house of lords is correct, they do not number enough (and a lot are respectful enough) not to impose their religious views on policy. Look at all the embryo bills that passed in the last few days. So religion does not usually come into public life.
3. Abuse of trust ... those are very strong words. This is where I wish you'd stopped to think about what it was you were replying to before you started typing. The children in the documentary, and referred to in the Telegraph article, were at a school run by a church. They are there because that is the education their parents want for them. So exactly whose trust is being abused?
The children’s trust in the knowledge of their teachers, I understand the presents may wish this but the children are likely to take their teachers words as fact (especially at a young age).
Your right though, that was not to reply to religious schools but if creationism entered the state curriculum. (I actually went to a religious primary school, we were taught Christianity but in the context of Christianity and not science, that said they did teach it as fact rather than belief)
4. At the very end of your post you offer a parody of a supposed creationist science lesson. I'd be interested in what you base this on. Not least because, talking as we are about the entire school curriculum, you need to consider that the way you teach science and RE to seven-year-olds is not the same way as you do for 17-year-olds.
As above, I am basing this on:
1. Mostly to idea of creationism in the state’s science curriculum
2. Very loosely on my own experiences, we were taught Christianity as if it were fact. That said, I accept they did not bring it into science. They did not teach as evolution or other religions but that may not be part of the primary education system anyway
Mine example was not intended as a parody but a simplified way of expressing what the curriculum should not be. Certainly not at a young age, Maybe at 17 children will be less inclined to think of creationism as science even if it were taught in it but the fact remains that it just does not belong in the curriculum.
Ouch that was a long post. Sorry.
Some people on this thread use (imho) the word theory when they mean assertion, which is a completely different ball of fish (to mix my metaphors).
frogstamper
21-05-2008, 13:37
As regards France having total secularisation between church and state, isn't this precisely what the US is supposed to have.? What is happening in the US, especially with creationism, is the over veneration of religion, criticizing religion in the US has become tantamount to treason. Thank common sense that this isn't happening in Britain, or for that matter likely too.
As regards France having total secularisation between church and state, isn't this precisely what the US is supposed to have.? What is happening in the US, especially with creationism, is the over veneration of religion, criticizing religion in the US has become tantamount to treason. Thank common sense that this isn't happening in Britain, or for that matter likely too.
Are you serious? Have you not heard of the 'religious hatred' law, where even comedians could be prosecuted for cracking a gag about allah?
frogstamper
21-05-2008, 14:00
Are you serious? Have you not heard of the 'religious hatred' law, where even comedians could be prosecuted for cracking a gag about allah?
I know what your saying Russ about the religious hatred bill, but has anybody been prosecuted yet? not that I'm aware of, comedians are just as free to send up religions as they ever were. What I'm saying is that in the US religion has attained a status of being almost untouchable, this has been happening for years over there, the previous president Bush came out with the pearler, "an atheist is not a true American". I just thank reason, and hope, that this is very unlikely to happen here.
I know what your saying Russ about the religious hatred bill, but has anybody been prosecuted yet? not that I'm aware of, comedians are just as free to send up religions as they ever were. What I'm saying is that in the US religion has attained a status of being almost untouchable, this has been happening for years over there, the previous president Bush came out with the pearler, "an atheist is not a true American". I just thank reason, and hope, that this is very unlikely to happen here.
I agree he overstepped the mark with that comment - Bush seems to be in a world of his own sometimes. Perhaps he was hoping for their 'bible-belt' votes? We don't have that here so national attitudes are likely to be different.
downquark1
21-05-2008, 15:51
This video presents the evidence from the dover trial. It demonstrates how intelligent design was a product of creation science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ&eurl=http://www.expelledexposed.com/)
Interesting article (imho) in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html)about the state of play over the pond.
downquark1
21-05-2008, 19:22
Interesting article (imho) in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html)about the state of play over the pond.
This is actually encouraging, the general public stat is 50%.
frogstamper
21-05-2008, 19:51
Interesting article (imho) in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html)about the state of play over the pond.
It does seem amazing that one in eight biology teachers in the US are teaching this religious belief of theirs as a valid subject, despite being told by the courts that creationism/id are religion and not science. According to the survey 12.5% of the almost 1000 science teachers who responded said they taught it "as a valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
To indoctrinate children with their religious beliefs, and then try to pass it off as science is criminal, these so called "science teachers" shouldn't be in the job of teaching children if they cannot separate fact from belief. The road America is now travelling is one Iran has already been down, one where facts and religious dogma do not mix, and invariably when push comes to shove dogma usually wins, like here.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.