Creationism vs Evolution, Equal? - Page 12

**Maggy** · 16-04-2007, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

So what about in faith schools? Any objections to creationism being taught there as a science?

I think the Department of Education would though if only to make sure everyone gets educated to the same bog standard.They don't have any objection to ID being taught in RS though as it's already appeared on the curriculem.

**Damien** · 16-04-2007, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

So what about in faith schools? Any objections to creationism being taught there as a science?

Yes. Its still a school. Science is considered factual. Just because its a faith school doesnt mean that a theory of your religion should be misrepresented as a science. Just because their parents and teachers believe in it doesnt mean it should be taught as a fact to their kids. In the end isnt it spinning the reality to get them to conform to the religion of someone elses chosing? Regardless of the intentions being good?

Present the science as the science and the religious theory and the theory.

**Maggy** · 16-04-2007, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanutkp

How long can the UK carry on teaching RE in schools before it starts to offend the other half of the class.

Because it doesn't offend the other half..parents are free to remove their children from RS lessons if it does.It doesn't happen often though because most people of faith appreciate that having a basic knowledge of other peoples faith and culture has the advantage of improving relationships between the differing faiths.Well it would if most students were even remotely interested in RS..The sad reality is most switch off mentally and call it boring.

**Damien** · 16-04-2007, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Because it doesn't offend the other half..parents are free to remove their children from RS lessons if it does.It doesn't happen often though because most people of faith appreciate that having a basic knowledge of other peoples faith and culture has the advantage of improving relationships between the differing faiths.Well it would if most students were even remotely interested in RS..The sad reality is most switch off mentally and call it boring.

Surely kids find most of school boring

**Maggy** · 16-04-2007, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Again I'm being pedantic but I made the same point to my math lecturer, he made the point that technology is the money maker. The subtle difference is sometimes science is knowledge for knowledge sake and has no application for profit. Evolution really has little potential for profit.

Technology wouldn't exist without science.You have to have a basic scientific knowledge to develop technology.They go hand in hand.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:05 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Surely kids find most of school boring

Yep! I swear they only go to school for the social life.

**Damien** · 16-04-2007, 23:09

Well Darwin certainly didnt have a easy time with Evolution, I think his motive was science and maybe ego but not profit or to be liked.

Tezcatlipoca · 16-04-2007, 23:30

If God created Man in His own image - rather than human beings being the product of evolution - then how come the human body has various "design flaws"?

Similar thing for other animals... if created by God, rather than being the product of evolution, then why the "design flaws"?

Surely anything designed by God, with a fixed unchanging template, would be perfect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

So what about in faith schools? Any objections to creationism being taught there as a science?

Personally, I object to Faith Schools full stop.

However, if such schools must exist, they still should not teach Creationism or ID as a science - not in place of evolution, & not even alongside evolution. It's still a faith-based subject, still a matter of faith. Just 'cos a school may be a faith school, does not suddenly turn Creationism into a Science.

Shaun · 17-04-2007, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

I accept the parts of science which fit in with my views and beliefs.

Ant that's what gets me about Religion. How can you toss aside the bit's of science that don't agree with your beliefs when science is based on facts. tangible things that can be reproduced?

This is what I find hard to understand about the whole thing.

Russ · 17-04-2007, 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

If God created Man in His own image - rather than human beings being the product of evolution - then how come the human body has various "design flaws"?

Which design flaws?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

Similar thing for other animals... if created by God, rather than being the product of evolution, then why the "design flaws"?

Usually evolution in animals is based on the changing environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

Surely anything designed by God, with a fixed unchanging template, would be perfect?

The bible states the world in in decay - nothing is as perfect as it was in Eden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

Ant that's what gets me about Religion. How can you toss aside the bit's of science that don't agree with your beliefs when science is based on facts. tangible things that can be reproduced?

The majority of what you're calling facts I don't have a problem with. But there are some things which you'd likely call 'fact' which I'm not convinced about. Scientists use estimations about the age of the universe for example. This is seen by many as 'fact'. But how can an estimate be fact? I agree it's compelling, but not a fact.

Ramrod · 17-04-2007, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

I've been over that countless times and from the following quoted post from you, you should already know judging from the attention you seem to pay the posts I made going back 18 months...

No answer then?

Quote:

I'm equally flattered and uncomfortable that you store my posts from such a long time ago -

I don't store those posts

They are stored on CF, I just did a quick search

Quote:

in any case what I've posted there makes no such demands - I do now what I did then and always have done - I look at the options and chose which ones makes the more sense to me.

The point I am making is that you choose the option that has no objective proof, no research behind it and reject the one that does. You demand hard proof from science but not from the bible.

Quote:

Yes.....because it's a belief...that's what a belief is, yes?

A belief isn't point to start a science lesson from.

TheBlueRaja · 17-04-2007, 08:29

I store all Rammy's posts, they go onto my ikkle shrine...

TheDaddy · 17-04-2007, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Which design flaws?

Appendix, tonsils, to many teeth in our mouths stuff like that for a start

Xaccers · 17-04-2007, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

By 'in God's image' I don't an actual image - I take that to mean humanoid.

So Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis etc as well?

TheDaddy · 17-04-2007, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

I store all Rammy's posts, they go onto my ikkle shrine...

Worshiping false idols or just stalking him

Stuart · 17-04-2007, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Which design flaws?

The fact that most important organs are duplicated (lungs, kidneys etc), where as the one organ that we really need to live (the heart) doesn't have a duplicate.

Note: I haven't mentioned the brain. While this doesn't have a duplicate, it has enough redundant parts that it can operate (at least on a basic level) with a large part of it damaged.

---------- Post added at 09:52 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis etc as well?

Does this mean God evolved as well? If we are in his image. j/k