Everything that can be proved to have been created can be taught, no problem. Everything else has to be studied under the title, "We haven't the foggiest it's anyone's guess." That way faith can be put where it is needed , in fact. Everything else is pure speculation, just give us the facts.
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy 53 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
maximumtool
YKnot:
First things first, please dont be offended, that is the last thing that I would want. And I absolutely was not saying you are lacking in capability or capacity.
Regardless if your statements were made regarding how evolution is perceived in the state of Texas, they still reveal that you do not know the basics of what is considered science. This does not mean that you are stupid or incapable, I am sure you are not either of those things, it just means that you do not know. Thats all. No reason to be offended.
You said: "So if you can't respect my views this means you assume yours are the only respectable/acceptable explanation? That is not very scientific. It is just plain onesided, closed minded and argumentative."
Not all opinions are equal, and therefore not all opinions should be respected equally. To state an extreme case for the sake of being clear, I am sure that Charles Manson has a ton of views and opinions that you choose to not respect. Are your views the only alternative to his? Obviously not. And again, you show your misunderstanding of what is scientific and what is not. The only respectable/acceptable explanations for anything are the ones that are in line with what the facts suggest. Straying from facts doesnt make someone "open minded", it makes them foolish and delusional.
"Your whole post seems to be aimed at questioning (undermining) my education because I don't believe as you."
My post was aimed at questioning your education because you came on this thread, made a statement implying that you were an authority on this subject, and then attempted to educate others on this site. My statements have nothing to do with you not believing as I do. You have a right to whatever you want to believe in. But to come on a discussion board that is going to be read by others, claim a level of expertise on a subject and make sweeping statements that are not even remotely close to accurate (based on the facts, not my opinion) is what I take issue with.
"You equate science with evolution as an absolute and it colors all of your responses. Evolution is not an absolute."
I do not equate evolution with science. Evolution is a theory that could become invalidated tomorrow if a test came along that gave results outside of what Evolutionary Theory has predicted. In other words, the process of conducting science could be the undoing of evolution in an instant, and scientists would welcome that. You are right, Evolution is not an absolute, not at all. Evolution is a theory used to explain what the facts tell us about life on this planet and biodiversity.
"You perceive one theory as fact and the other as myth when both sides have equal ammunition to fuel this argument until the sun burns out."
This simply could not be more incorrect. And this is coming from someone who used to be the most hardcore creationist you could ever imagine.
"Can you prove that there is no God, who acted as a Creator"
Evolution is not an atheistic theory. It is an attempt to explain the facts that we know, and has nothing to do with God.
"Yet Evolutionist insist on being absolutely right and having the 'troof'"
This is not at all correct. Anyone who properly understands evolutionary theory realize that a single test can come along and suddenly disprove the entire theory. Anyone with a proper view of science would embrace this. No one who wants to adhere to the appropriately rigirous standards of science would want to cling to evolutionary theory if it suddenly was not supported by fact.
"Yet just like the Witnesses your perception is the only persception acceptable."
If you knew me at all, you would know that this is not the case. My view is, and always will be for the rest of my life, the one that is supported by the evidence. For now, evolutionary theory is the best explanation with regards to the biodiversity we see on this planet.
"Breathe..... your way is not the only way and neither is mine."
I cant steer reality based on my preference. Things are what they are. We have our facts, then we determine a way to explain them. It is what it is. There is no "way" to it...
-
XJW4EVR
"Evolution is a theory that could become invalidated tomorrow if a test came along that gave results outside of what Evolutionary Theory has predicted. In other words, the process of conducting science could be the undoing of evolution in an instant, and scientists would welcome that. You are right, Evolution is not an absolute, not at all. Evolution is a theory used to explain what the facts tell us about life on this planet and biodiversity."
This is a nice statement, but, as Ben Stein has shown it is not true. When anyone with any sort of academic credentials leans towards Intelligent Design they summarily dismissed from teaching positions. This hypocrisy in its highest, err lowest form.
There are so many, Anthony Flew is one scientist I can think of, that have jettisoned their evolutionist presuppositions because of the direction the evidence has taken them.
If evolution is not an absolute, then why are evolutionist so dead set against Intelligent Design? If evolution is just a theory, then why are evolutionist so dead set against having it debated in the marketplace of ideas? -
gaiagirl
To clear up a point which was raised earlier in this thread:
An A.S. is an Associate in Science degree, usually earned in a two year program following high school. Associates degrees are offered in many fields, with a certain number of hours of "core" classes which pertain to the major field, plus some English, Literature, Math, etc.
I've known people with Associates Degrees in Machine Shop and Medical Technology (the girl who sticks the needle in your arm at the Blood Bank might have an A.S. in this field), etc.
Most people who attend college used to go for four years and earn a Bachelors degree, (nothing less was offered), or even longer to become a Master or Ph.D. An Associates Degree is essentially for those whose career choices require not more than two years of education past high school (not intended as a put-down, simply an observation). -
yknot
Max
If you haven't noticed many American scientist and lay persons think there should be equal footing of both evolution & creationism at the discussion table.
Facts can be presented for both views, and argued ad nausium
Again if you go back and read your post you use much like the WT 'loaded" language. "Basics of considered science", is this true or only of the version science which you currently profess. "Misunderstanding of what is scientific and what is not" again according to your evolutionary opinion. "Facts suggest", yes I am sure we can spend loads of time presenting our 'facts' to support each view. "Straying from facts"...whose facts are these? Why they are evolutionist's fact...a bit of circular thinking going on here. "Foolish and delusional" very nice to insult me and anyone who does not fully agree with you again.
I never implied myself an authority on the subject. I did state that I had an AS in biology and I acknowledged microevolution but not macroevolution.
I take that back I am quite an authority in regards to Texas school policy regarding evolution, but it was a hotbed topic last year. Next year I can claim I am quite an authority on the Texas Democratic Caucus & Convention since I am stuck being a delegate in June's state convention.
Are you telling me I do not have the right to say what my state's position on the subject? Is making the statement that Texas schools don't really teach evolution or endorse it beyond what is legally required really "educating" others on this site? It was a factual statement. If it wasn't Chris Comer would still have a job.
You said:
Evolution is a theory that could become invalidated tomorrow if a test came along that gave results outside of what Evolutionary Theory has predicted. In other words, the process of conducting science could be the undoing of evolution in an instant, and scientists would welcome that. You are right, Evolution is not an absolute, not at all. Evolution is a theory used to explain what the facts tell us about life on this planet and biodiversity.
Since evolution is not an absolute then creationism cannot be totally discounted. What evolutionist failed to see is that when they won their victory of having a chapter in every public school science textbook was that it couldn't force teachers to actually teach the concept more then a brief statement that the child was free to read the chapter themselves but that it would be covered any further during the course of the school year. Creationism in that sense has been taught all along. Again it is just an equal seat at the discussion table, instead of the wink and rolling of the eyes after the concept of evolution is briefly introduced. In many ways having creationism openly discussed alongside of evolution actually gives more inspection to evolutionary concepts.
You say things are what they are but during the same post you admit evolution can be tossed at the drop of "new ". This again is why it should not be the only explanation considered.
I agree I do not know you as you do not know me. I see you are a passionate person and I applaud you for this trait but sometimes we have to allow some give and take in order for all to come to the table and talk. You cannot take a unilateral stand on something that is not unilateral. Creationism hasn't changed in thousands of years. Science is in a constant ebb and tide, which is why it is awesome!
Respect and tolerance, politely agreeing to disagree is a good thing and should not be taken for granted.
-
yknot
You are correct Gaiagirl!
I actually took biology courses out of personal interest & end up with enough to receive an AS, but still shy a few for a BS.
I also found it helpful when I switched degrees to nursing (better $$, more flexible hours).
Maybe later I will pursue those courses but right now my main focus is upgrading my RN to BSN.
I love college, which is proof that I am not cut out to be a WT Witness.
-
83501nwahs
An AS is an associates degree, in this case Associate of Science. AS degrees are awarded only by Jr. colleges, not Universities. You can not be an RN with only an AS. To be an RN you must have a bachelor's degree. Having an AS does not put you within a few credits of a bachelor's degree. An AS is usually looked at as the half way point to getting a BA or BS. It sounds like ynot is being a little less than up front with his/her education stats.
Also, I agree with Qcumbr, schools should concentrate on historical facts like Jews coming to N. America and acting like or even being Indians, and the existence of Lamanites. Now that's scientific fact for sure! -
Gerard
Evolution is a theory.....
No. it is a proven fact.
-
Simon
'creationist teacher' is an oxymoron.
If they are peddling creation then they are a propagandist and nothing more.
-
crazyblondeb
I also found it helpful when I switched degrees to nursing (better $$, more flexible hours).
Maybe later I will pursue those courses but right now my main focus is upgrading my RN to BSN
I'm so sorry....I did that, and 16 years later I hate nursing....or most of it!