1 of 4
1
"New laws are needed to prevent creationism ’indoctrination’ in independent schools, says top science educator"
Posted: 22 July 2015 06:54 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26

I think this is going to become a bigger and bigger issue with more states expanding their Charter school system.

“New laws are needed to prevent creationism ‘indoctrination’ in independent schools, says top science educator”

We really need laws governing these schools and mandating a basic science curriculum free of religious teachings of any type especially if its funded by public money.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2015 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

Indubitably.  If they get public funds they must meet certain minimum public standards.  If they are completely funded by private money, I think that we have to allow ignorant indoctrination, unless it reaches a level that undermines the collective well-being of our society.  (What am I saying? It already undermines the collective well being of our society.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01

Isn’t creationism part of history and not science! LOL
 
I don’t think it is anything we would have to pass more laws on. The religious teachings today cannot win against the internet with the new generation when it comes to religious beliefs. 
 
History has shown us that religion for the most part is based upon the control of knowledge known as the (gnostic teachings and the spirit).  The Christian religion itself is based a lot upon the old Egyptian religion where the god RA had all the knowledge. So in a way, the internet is replacing god in many aspects of the human needs. This battle for truth will take place in cyber space, not the class room.
 
What I see as a bigger concern is keeping the data that is on the internet correct. Take for example, the Jewish redemption ceremony (Pidyon haben). Israel use to mint a coin for the ceremony where you would buy your oldest son back from the Egyptian Pharaoh. Part of the Egyptian tax system that had been going on for millennials. Just in the last couple of years it has gotten its history changed to a Jewish only tradition that had the first born changing to the tribe of Levi, or some BS along those lines. With an exclamation that it has always been a payment of five silver coins to, gets a little muddy as to how it now works and who gets the money, but it is being sold as old tradition.
 
The point being, religion teachings are slippery and can change. It would chasing your tail trying to pass a law on something so greasy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4210
Joined  2009-10-21

Oh Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You are a very silly man.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 01:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

I like Mike’s unique take on religious anthropology(?).  I can’t vouch for it, but it is, IMO, quite unique and therefore interesting.  And he has obviously put a lot of thought and study into it.  Also, his point about religious beliefs vs. the internet may have some merit.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4210
Joined  2009-10-21

Huh. It seems more like random facts strung together to me. What possible relation is there to creationism being taught in a science class and errors being propagated through adult Bible school?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

Not sure I understand your question, but creativity is often about connecting what is seemingly un-connected.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 23 July 2015 12:51 PM

Oh Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You are a very silly man.

Ok, Lausten, the post is about creationism being taught in schools and the kids being indoctrinated into a theory that they won’t be able to get rid of. Which you’re posting gives no thoughts into. A subject that you have criticized posters for not following the subject.  As we know education is a state verses federal power political problem when it comes to laws. Now you add in the religious political punch and you have a three way power grab. The home schooling and private schools will have little say by the time it comes to passing the law.  And I am pretty sure she is talking about schools in England.
 
Being an atheist, I believe that the earth was created for man by the gods and that man was created by the gods. And science is proving this to be true, piece by piece. It may take another ten years to get there, but we are heading in that direction. Mainly because of the science of DNA. Of all people you should understand this.
 
This is truly a great time for archaeology and science. First, the bible says god created earth. OK. Now that is just one tiny piece of a puzzle. Go to the older Genesis stories and they say the gods created earth for the gods. They were taming the rivers by making cannels and farming. They were domesticating the plants and animals of the earth. Then the story goes on to say that the gods created man. What I see is they had a lot of practice creating horses, chickens and just about all the domesticated animals and plants that we use today to supply the protein need for a large population. So one could assume they may have had the skills to create man in the same manner as they did the horse and chicken. 
 
Now, why would they not create man? They say they did. Now take for example the white man. Where did he come from? The accepted science was man turned white from being in the upper latitudes. This does not fit the creation theory at all. It does fit the evolution theory. And as accepted evolution science along the lines of the earth is flat theory, had no real science to back it up. And it was us (silly, silly people) that was pointing out that the theory does not fit the puzzle because the latitude cause and effect should work the same in all north and south latitudes and not just Europe’s. In just the last ninety days the studies of the evolution of the white man coming from upper Europe and made man white by the latitude theory has been trashed by scientific studies.
 
Next science is saying that today’s man all came from one woman and has genes from other lines of mankind. Now make that fit into evolution or creation. Point being the answer may not be green or red but more of a yellow, if you get my meaning. Put another way, at the time of the earliest stories, gods as deities had only evolved to animals with human heads and there is no evidence they created anything as deities. So the upper and lower gods most likely had nothing to do with deities and was a name used to define classes of people. See, silly, silly you thought that gods had to be deities. Not true at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 07:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4210
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 03:54 PM
Lausten - 23 July 2015 12:51 PM

Oh Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You are a very silly man.

Ok, Lausten, the post is about creationism being taught in schools and the kids being indoctrinated into a theory that they won’t be able to get rid of. Which you’re posting gives no thoughts into. A subject that you have criticized posters for not following the subject.  As we know education is a state verses federal power political problem when it comes to laws. Now you add in the religious political punch and you have a three way power grab. The home schooling and private schools will have little say by the time it comes to passing the law.  And I am pretty sure she is talking about schools in England.
 
Being an atheist, I believe that the earth was created for man by the gods and that man was created by the gods. And science is proving this to be true, piece by piece. It may take another ten years to get there, but we are heading in that direction. Mainly because of the science of DNA. Of all people you should understand this.
 

I stopped reading here. Did you mean to say “atheist”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 08:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4332
Joined  2014-06-20

I’d be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others’ beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, of course, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education.

Lois

[ Edited: 24 July 2015 11:55 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 23 July 2015 07:18 PM
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 03:54 PM
Lausten - 23 July 2015 12:51 PM

Oh Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You are a very silly man.

Ok, Lausten, the post is about creationism being taught in schools and the kids being indoctrinated into a theory that they won’t be able to get rid of. Which you’re posting gives no thoughts into. A subject that you have criticized posters for not following the subject.  As we know education is a state verses federal power political problem when it comes to laws. Now you add in the religious political punch and you have a three way power grab. The home schooling and private schools will have little say by the time it comes to passing the law.  And I am pretty sure she is talking about schools in England.
 
Being an atheist, I believe that the earth was created for man by the gods and that man was created by the gods. And science is proving this to be true, piece by piece. It may take another ten years to get there, but we are heading in that direction. Mainly because of the science of DNA. Of all people you should understand this.
 

I stopped reading here. Did you mean to say “atheist”?

OK, I’ll bite, what’s your problem. The thought is simple. Looking at creation using science. There is no problem. Try it. First you have to understand that the writers were just as smart as you are. Second, the translators of past writings can redirect the thought to a more acceptable translation for the time period the translation took place. Get out of the bible and go to the earlier Genesis stories.
The “gods” created earth for mankind.  What was a god at that period in time? It was not Elohim they were talking about.
Now answer the question, “Who tamed the wild animals and domesticated the protein on earth to serve mankind?”
That is what you would call creation and not evolution. And the “gods” they are talking about are not deities. So they can only be referencing a group or race of people. And as the story goes, the gods did not do the creating. The upper gods ask the mid-wife’s to create man. So, the translators had to come up with a title for the people who created man. The best the translators could do at the time was mid-wife’s. Today it would more likely be “scientist”. Or for us none scientist, “animal husbandry”. FY 1989 animal husbandry in India constituted about 25 percent of the total agricultural output of 22 billion. 
 
Point being made. Teaching of creation is ok from a scientific point of view. What the post is saying is that a religious group, most likely “Christians” want to teach their “un-scientific belief” in school as true science. And this should not be allowed and a law should be passed to stop them. The point I made is a law will just create a game of cat and mouse with a religious belief. People in general are smart, and if we use our energy to keep the information correct on the internet I think we will accomplish better results.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2015 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 23 July 2015 08:58 PM

I’d be happy to see comparative religion taught in schools from a young age. It would not be indoctrination, but teaching about many religions and atheism. Let the kids learn that there are beliefs other than their own and how they differ. They may come to realize that their religion looks strange to other people and they may become more tolerant. Good educators could create good lesson plans. Lessons about separation of church and state could be included and what it means to be tolerant of others’ beliefs and lack of beliefs. The problem, pf purse, would be intolerant parents. They may protest as they have against sex education and demand their kids be excused from the class. Most would remain however and get a much better education.

Lois

Lois, I agreed with your thinking several years ago. But then as I learned more about religions. I found that there is a lot of sex in the older religions. Older religion is more about sex than any other subject. Probably not the best subject for young classrooms. If you get a chance, read The Lost Gospel. Jesus and Mary’s religion was built on religious sex. That’s why Jesus and Mary’s direct teachings never made Paul’s bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4210
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 09:04 PM

OK, I’ll bite, what’s your problem. The thought is simple. Looking at creation using science. There is no problem. Try it. First you have to understand that the writers were just as smart as you are. Second, the translators of past writings can redirect the thought to a more acceptable translation for the time period the translation took place. Get out of the bible and go to the earlier Genesis stories.
The “gods” created earth for mankind.  What was a god at that period in time? It was not Elohim they were talking about.
Now answer the question, “Who tamed the wild animals and domesticated the protein on earth to serve mankind?”
That is what you would call creation and not evolution. And the “gods” they are talking about are not deities. So they can only be referencing a group or race of people. And as the story goes, the gods did not do the creating. The upper gods ask the mid-wife’s to create man. So, the translators had to come up with a title for the people who created man. The best the translators could do at the time was mid-wife’s. Today it would more likely be “scientist”. Or for us none scientist, “animal husbandry”. FY 1989 animal husbandry in India constituted about 25 percent of the total agricultural output of 22 billion. 
 
Point being made. Teaching of creation is ok from a scientific point of view. What the post is saying is that a religious group, most likely “Christians” want to teach their “un-scientific belief” in school as true science. And this should not be allowed and a law should be passed to stop them. The point I made is a law will just create a game of cat and mouse with a religious belief. People in general are smart, and if we use our energy to keep the information correct on the internet I think we will accomplish better results.

The court case where intelligent design was shown to be an attempt to smuggle religion into the science class room was pretty and cut dry. They lost. Your convoluted redefining of words here would just as easily be destroyed. It is not correct information and I have zero interest in explaining that any further. You are an atheist who believes in god, that makes you interesting only in the sense of being unusual. But you have nothing to offer to science or history, so stay away from those classrooms.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 09:04 PM

 
Point being made. Teaching of creation is ok from a scientific point of view.

This is incorrect. Creationist ideas are not scientific in that they are not disprovable. Therefor they don’t belong in any science class no matter how they change the story or the approach. Their only role in a science class would be to teach kids what science “IS NOT”.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 01:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
macgyver - 24 July 2015 10:26 AM
MikeYohe - 23 July 2015 09:04 PM

 
Point being made. Teaching of creation is ok from a scientific point of view.

This is incorrect. Creationist ideas are not scientific in that they are not disprovable. Therefor they don’t belong in any science class no matter how they change the story or the approach. Their only role in a science class would be to teach kids what science “IS NOT”.

You’re right, if you mean religious creationists ideas. Point I was trying to make was that the problem of teaching creation is not with the many stories of creation. That the problem is with the Christian story of creation. And your right, we are not ready to teach it to our children yet. I was thinking at the college level when I made that quote.
 
Christian Creationists ideas are not scientific.
 
But to say creation is not true is to say the pre-history stories passed down by our ancestors are fiction.
 
I think that Christianity is the real problem with creation. Take Christianity completely out of the picture and what have you got? How did the people understand the creation stories for thousands of years before Christianity came along and changed the creation story?
 
Take a society that has created most of the domesticated animals we know.
 
A society that has created most of the protein we use.
 
A society that has told us that they also created man.
 
So what do they mean, when they say “created man”? 
 
Take the horse for example. Someone created the donkey from the horse (guessing). Then someone created the mule from the horse and donkey.
 
Why would they need to create man?
 
Well, they told us why. The people of this society needed to build irrigation cannels. The people of this society were not physically able to do this work without hurting their backs. They wanted to create a man that could work on and build the cannels without pain. 
With this said. Who were the people of this society of upper and lower gods? The reason creation cannot be taught as science is that we don’t have all the answers and it needs to be a proven theory first.
 
Use Christianity to teach what is not science. Creationism (not including the Christian version) may be more of a translation and missing history problem.
 
Note, all these stories were most likely passed down from pre-history. So the dates are unknown. The Christian Creation story was done in the time of history and can be dated. The earlier stories of Genesis does not talk about a god (deity) creating the earth. It says everything is made from matter. Space is void of matter. Earth was created from start dust. Then man came to be. Then man created god. But, god means (knowledge). Then man’s knowledge helped create earth for mankind. Which is pretty much the way it must have taken place.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2015 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 24 July 2015 09:34 AM

Your convoluted redefining of words here would just as easily be destroyed. It is not correct information and I have zero interest in explaining that any further. You are an atheist who believes in god, that makes you interesting only in the sense of being unusual. But you have nothing to offer to science or history, so stay away from those classrooms.

That is because you are totally wide of the mark with creation and I don’t think you can explain it in any manner and stay with logical and scientific facts. You have no interest in explaining it further most likely because you can’t without approaching the realization that this whole creation process is nothing more than a process that has been going on for thousands of years and is still going on today and to approach the subject with an open mind you would have to step out of the Christian box you are secure in. The only “convoluted redefining of words” are being done by people who use today’s definitions and apply it to ancient events and writings. Everything is evolving, including language. 
 
You are an atheist who believes in god”. I believe your knowledge about religions and gods is too narrow to be able to make that kind of statement and be able to back it up. Too much Christian mentality driving your thought process.  We all have our handicaps, so let me help you out. I believe mankind has a history. And this history includes gods. Not only your new god, but the gods of the ancient ancestors.  It would be more correct to have stated “You are an atheist who believes in the history of gods”. I am not say you are wrong, but your statement can be easily misunderstood by people. As far as the bible and Christianity, you’re the man. I would never question you on the bible. If we are to ever get out of the Age of Deities, mankind needs to move into the whole picture of religion. 
 
Over a year ago on this forum we talked about the definition of “Atheist” and agreed that an Atheist does not have a belief in a deity as a power. That’s me, I don’t believe in deities. There is no divine power or supernatural power. And Genesis does not say that there is a deity with the exception of the latter Christian genesis story, which is the odd ball historical genesis story. But we know the circumstances that that story was written under and it should be used with those facts in mind. 
 
The term “god” has many meaning which include, knowledge, leader, ruler, person who has the wealth to acquire title, judge, mystics, king, animal with human characteristics, and the list can go on and on. The Christian god is a god of the OT put together 3K years ago. Then reinvented into the religion of Paul.
 
Of the number of gods, and who knowns, must be over a couple of hundred thousand gods in history, to many to count anyway, the Christian god is a deity god controlled and powered by belief.
 
As far as the classrooms, truth and science should prevail. But I think we would be day dreaming to think the powers of belief are not stronger than science at this time. Mankind needs to depart from the Age of Deities before the history of creation and religion can be taught in the classroom.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1