Science > Physics > Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Cygnus X-1" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 09:59:03 PM |
| Object: |
Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
Still trying to track down some references (and pointers from those in
the group would be appreciated). References are linked on the web site
version (see bottom of the main page).
=======
Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes
W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.
cygnusx1@mac.com
"Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy",
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/
Draft
In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.
Yet, in all the turmoil created by these battles in the school boards
and courts, there is one solution that has been overlooked, or perhaps
avoided. In the true spirit of turning a problem into an opportunity,
if we wish to improve the critical thinking skills of our students,
"Scientific Creationism" provides many examples of a pseudo-science
that can be analyzed in detail to teach students why it just doesn't
work.
My particular field is astrophysics, and over the past ten years I've
examined a number of claims by the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) who
object to modern cosmology's evidence that the universe is on the order
of 14 billion years old. Creationist "theories" such as claims that
the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past (to
solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics. YEC
claims using general relativity might have to be dealt with in
undergraduate to graduate-level physics classes, but nonetheless will
better prepare future physicists for dealing with these issues. Many
amateur and professional scientists have analyzed creationist claims
and the results are available through a number of resources such as
Talk.Origins.
In college level physics classes, many Creationist claims can be
examined directly. Gigabytes of astrophysical data are already freely
available online to support such a project. For primary and secondary
education, curriculum developers need to be able to convert the
analyses of pseudo-science claims into workable lesson plans and then
deliver the resources and necessary training to the schools and
teachers. This is not an easy task, but the price of NOT doing it is
the loss of American leadership in science and engineering. I have
done some work from the astrophysical side of the problem, but
geologists and biologists need to take a similar approach.
Advocates of "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" fear such an
approach. While it's not received much attention, some have publicly
admitted that their 'theory' (actually a hypothesis) has had no success
in the laboratory. That's why they fall back to "teaching the
controversy" as it is an easy way to avoid this problem while they try
to maneuver other components of their agenda into the classroom (this
is why the Discovery Institute describes it as the "Wedge Strategy").
"Intelligent Design", as a real scientific theory, failed a century
ago, and belongs in the dustbin of failed theories with the
luminiferous aether and the plumb-pudding model of the atom. The claim
that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is just playing games with
words. Electromagnetism is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory.
Even gravity is a theory. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate a useful
better antenna design, a better semiconductor component design, or
develop a trajectory to send a spacecraft through the Solar System
without using these "theories". We've sent spacecraft to distant
regions of our own Solar System, but I've yet to see a Biblical
geocentrist compute the trajectory to send a spacecraft to the Moon or
Mars. This might be an important issue for human crews in the
not-to-distant future.
Creationists like to claim that we can't "know" what's happening or
what happened in distant regions of the cosmos or far back in time,
yet physicists have done this from the time of Galileo with great
success. Newton's theory of gravity was explaining how planets and
stars move in empty space nearly three centuries before machines and
humans could travel in space to test it. Einstein's revision to that
theory was explaining observations in the distant cosmos years before
some of the predictions could be tested in Earth-based experiments
and decades before it's effects were incorporated into the Global
Positioning System (GPS). Quantum theory was explaining atomic
behavior in rarefied regions of distant space and the incredible
high-density structure of stellar remnants such as white dwarf and
neutron stars decades before the conditions could be even partially
reproduced in the laboratory, even before it became a key component in
the development of microelectronics. When astrophysicists discovered a
deficit in the number of neutrinos emitted from the Sun in the late
1960s, called the Solar Neutrino Problem, Creationists touted this as
evidence that the Sun was not powered by nuclear reactions and the 4.5
billion year age of the Sun was not possible. Real scientists checked
their calculations and concluded that a neutrino mass (up to that time,
the neutrino was assumed to be massless), far smaller than was possible
to measure at the time, could explain the deficit. In recent years,
we've been able to confirm this effect in Earth-based experiments.
We've even discovered properties in the atomic nucleus based on
cosmological constraints. Cosmology isn't just something that happens
'out there' - it has often provided guidance on physical phenomena
years before controlled laboratory experiments were possible. There
have been no similar successes or utility from Creation "science" or
"Intelligent Design". Cosmology has real implications for our
technology and life on Earth.
Since the dawn of the atomic age in WWII, science has enjoyed the
grateful generosity of taxpaying public. Scientists have used this
generosity to unlock the tiniest secrets of the atom to the most
distant regions of the cosmos and has generated useful products and
methodologies in the process.
In spite of all this advancement, the American scientific community has
left behind an intellectual vacuum in the education system that
crackpots and con-artists have been all too willing to fill. The
scientific community has ignored this growing problem and now it
threatens to infect our society. Our nation would not be the first to
take this self-destructive path. Stalin dismissed Darwinian selection
in favor of Lysenko's theories on adaptation, allowing the political
process, instead of the scientific process, define the science. When
they applied Lysenko's ideas to Soviet agriculture, crop failures
ensued. This was the reason for the U.S. grain sales to the Soviet
Union in the 1970s. Their resulting inability to feed their own people
was a contributor to their collapse. The Nazis despised "Jewish
Physics" and touted their own "Aryan Physics". The famous "Einstein
Letter", advocating the development of the atomic bomb, was sent to FDR
in August of 1939. At that time, all the research with nuclear energy
weren't much more than tabletop experiments. The only indication that
the energy release would extrapolate to levels necessary for an atomic
bomb were the successes at that time of explaining the energy
production in the Sun and other stars. "Aryan Physics" touted the
superiority of experimentalists over the 'extrapolations' of theorists,
and (thankfully) may have hindered their own thinking on such a weapon
..
And we don't need to limit the debunking to creationism. There are a
plethora of pseudo-science claims with their adherents, many who post
their ramblings on the World Wide Web. A perusal of Crank dot Net
yields a cornucopia of pseudoscientific claims from free-energy scams
to "proofs" that relativity is wrong, with a broad range of
sophistication. Teaching students how to analyze these claims with
real science gives them a valuable tool not only for their professional
future but also for their role as citizens in a
technologically-advanced society.
I've raised this issue with scientists and teachers who express
reluctance to address debunking pseudo-science in the classroom.
However, the scientific community can no longer afford the luxury of
letting this battle play out in the courts and hoping for the best.
Over the past five years, this problem as grown from a single state to
challenges all over the United States. The approach I propose gives
the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.
The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
we play them.
---
Acknowledgements: The author would like to express appreciation to all
those who reviewed drafts of this document and provided citations.
======
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 07:25:06 PM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
Sure He can. It's called the Kingdom of God. Nothing ever breaks down there.
But our universe is not the Kingdom of God. Our universe is the Prison of
Lost Souls.
Do you admire the hypothetical god that you think
set up this so called Prison of Lost Souls?
It sounds like a sadistic demon, to me,
if it actually exists and did what you are attributing to it.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 07:49:17 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:42339672.2C631BA6@rica.net...
Chris Devol wrote:
Sure He can. It's called the Kingdom of God. Nothing ever breaks down
there.
But our universe is not the Kingdom of God. Our universe is the Prison of
Lost Souls.
Do you admire the hypothetical god that you think
set up this so called Prison of Lost Souls?
It sounds like a sadistic demon, to me,
if it actually exists and did what you are attributing to it.
Putting criminals in prison so they won't disturb honest citizens is
sadistic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 09:26:13 PM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:42339672.2C631BA6@rica.net...
Chris Devol wrote:
(snip)
Our universe is the Prison of Lost Souls.
Do you admire the hypothetical god that you think
set up this so called Prison of Lost Souls?
It sounds like a sadistic demon, to me,
if it actually exists and did what you are attributing to it.
Putting criminals in prison so they won't disturb honest citizens is
sadistic?
Do you consider every living thing that has ever,
or will ever exist, a criminal,
from its first moment of existence till its death?
I certainly don't.
I think it is appropriate that my spell checker
keeps advising me to replace your last name with "Devil".
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 09:52:47 PM |
|
|
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:4233B2D5.6B1D78B8@rica.net...
Chris Devol wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:42339672.2C631BA6@rica.net...
Chris Devol wrote:
(snip)
Our universe is the Prison of Lost Souls.
Do you admire the hypothetical god that you think
set up this so called Prison of Lost Souls?
It sounds like a sadistic demon, to me,
if it actually exists and did what you are attributing to it.
Putting criminals in prison so they won't disturb honest citizens is
sadistic?
Do you consider every living thing that has ever,
or will ever exist, a criminal,
from its first moment of existence till its death?
Where in the world do you get that idea from?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
14 Mar 2005 12:33:49 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2005-03-13, Chris Devol <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:42339672.2C631BA6@rica.net...
Chris Devol wrote:
Sure He can. It's called the Kingdom of God. Nothing ever breaks down
there.
But our universe is not the Kingdom of God. Our universe is the Prison of
Lost Souls.
Do you admire the hypothetical god that you think
set up this so called Prison of Lost Souls?
It sounds like a sadistic demon, to me,
if it actually exists and did what you are attributing to it.
Putting criminals in prison so they won't disturb honest citizens is
sadistic?
It is when you are responsible for creating the criminals in the first
place, yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About CreationisminScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 08:38:39 PM |
|
|
in article jFLYd.8743$cN6.6512@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Chris Devol
at wrote on 03/12/05 7:18 PM:
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58EC98.EEF0%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
in article YxHYd.7599$oO4.7523@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Chris
Devol
at wrote on 03/12/05 2:37 PM:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N:dlzc1.D:cox.T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:mgHYd.4250$uk7.2090@fed1read01...
Dear Chris Devol:
"Chris Devol" < > wrote in message
news:DbHYd.8282$cN6.206@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58A0D3.ED21%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
...
I find it much more appropriate to believe that
God created the laws of nature that work,
period, and that He does not enable or intervene
in how they work (except for the occasional
miracle).
Well, you may believe that, but then your "God"
will be so remote that you needn't think of Him
at all.
Clearly not what he said. "Occasional miracle" includes involvement.
"occasional intervention" implies "normal remoteness".
Miracles which happen all the time aren't miracles, by definition. And
miracles which can be explained as natural phenomena aren't miracles. God
can work through natural phenomena, but calling providential grace a
"miracle" is not correct theologically.
That really does reduce Him to a "mere mechanic".
Or the Animator of this Finger Puppet Play. Why keep diddling with the
Sets?
Maintenance of a very complex machine requires constant attention. Ask
the
Space Shuttle people.
I see. So a "perfect" God couldn't create something that doesn't break
down?
Interesting.
Sure He can. It's called the Kingdom of God. Nothing ever breaks down there.
But our universe is not the Kingdom of God. Our universe is the Prison of
Lost Souls.
I didn't think that Hare Krishna believed in such things. After all, you see
everything as a part of God. And a "soul" is never really lost since on
death the soul goes from one body to another body. And since you have,
according to you, a steady-state universe of hundreds of billions of years,
you certainly aren't looking for a "kingdom".
Hmmm. Doesn't Hare Krishna teach that being in a state of mind where you
forget yourself and are only aware of God is the "kingdom of God"?
Hare Krishna may use some of the same words as Christianity, but they have
different meanings attached to them. That makes communication difficult, if
not impossible.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About CreationisminScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 09:23:50 PM |
|
|
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE5911DF.EF02%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
in article jFLYd.8743$cN6.6512@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Chris
Devol
at wrote on 03/12/05 7:18 PM:
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58EC98.EEF0%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
in article YxHYd.7599$oO4.7523@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Chris
Devol
at wrote on 03/12/05 2:37 PM:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N:dlzc1.D:cox.T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:mgHYd.4250$uk7.2090@fed1read01...
Dear Chris Devol:
"Chris Devol" < > wrote in message
news:DbHYd.8282$cN6.206@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58A0D3.ED21%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
...
I find it much more appropriate to believe that
God created the laws of nature that work,
period, and that He does not enable or intervene
in how they work (except for the occasional
miracle).
Well, you may believe that, but then your "God"
will be so remote that you needn't think of Him
at all.
Clearly not what he said. "Occasional miracle" includes involvement.
"occasional intervention" implies "normal remoteness".
Miracles which happen all the time aren't miracles, by definition. And
miracles which can be explained as natural phenomena aren't miracles.
God
can work through natural phenomena, but calling providential grace a
"miracle" is not correct theologically.
That really does reduce Him to a "mere mechanic".
Or the Animator of this Finger Puppet Play. Why keep diddling with
the
Sets?
Maintenance of a very complex machine requires constant attention. Ask
the
Space Shuttle people.
I see. So a "perfect" God couldn't create something that doesn't break
down?
Interesting.
Sure He can. It's called the Kingdom of God. Nothing ever breaks down
there.
But our universe is not the Kingdom of God. Our universe is the Prison of
Lost Souls.
I didn't think that Hare Krishna believed in such things. After all, you
see
everything as a part of God. And a "soul" is never really lost since on
death the soul goes from one body to another body. And since you have,
according to you, a steady-state universe of hundreds of billions of
years,
you certainly aren't looking for a "kingdom".
Everything is a part of God, it's true. But transmigrating from body to body
is the very definition of "lost", because that is not the constitutional
position of the soul. Nevertheless, the soul cannot die, and he can at any
time return to his original position as servant of God, and return to the
Kingdom of God where he will live eternally, full of bliss and knowledge,
happily playing with God.
Hmmm. Doesn't Hare Krishna teach that being in a state of mind where you
forget yourself and are only aware of God is the "kingdom of God"?
No. Forgetting oneself is not the goal. Self-forgetfulness is illusion. The
goal is to remember who and what one really is, and to remember the
relationship between oneself and God, and to return to acting in that
relationship.
Hare Krishna may use some of the same words as Christianity, but they have
different meanings attached to them. That makes communication difficult,
if
not impossible.
That is because you think that Christianity is somehow opposed to Krishna
consciousness. Despite your repudiation of the fundamentalist indoctrination
of your youth, you still hold to many of the superstitions, such as the idea
that sectarian Christianity is the "one true faith" and all other religious
traditions are therefore false.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 03:34:20 PM |
|
|
in article DbHYd.8282$cN6.206@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Chris Devol
at wrote on 03/12/05 2:13 PM:
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58A0D3.ED21%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
in article 423324F4.97C52245@rica.net, John Popelish at
wrote on 03/12/05 12:20 PM:
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
Your point being? Modern science does not rule out the existence of
God. The experimental evidence that that he/she doesn't intervene in
the laws of nature.
(snip)
Or God intervenes constantly, in perfectly consistent ways,
everywhere.
;-)
Hmmm. Doesn't this reduce the Almighty to a mere mechanic? Does it not
suppress Him and make Him an instrument of unrighteousness at a whim?
He was being sarcastic.
Thanks for the clarification. I was gone a couple of days and did not get
the entire exchange.
But the answer to your question is that God is a
mechanic, but not a "mere" mechanic. He does plenty of other things.
Hmmmm. Such as?
For example, if God must constantly intervene to make the Laws of Nature
work, then why should He do so for those who are going to kill or destroy?
Why cause the bullet to fire into the innocent? Why allow the carnage?
The free will of the individual souls, which is also a law of nature, and
which therefore God also maintains.
Hmmmm. I see. So since you have "free will", God *has* to help you exercise
it? Sorry, that does not follow.
I can see it now. The burglar, gun in hand, pointed at the old lady who is
going toward her phone. She picks up the phone, he pulls the trigger, and
God causes the bullet to fire, causes it to travel a straight path to her
chest, rips apart the flesh and kills her.
What was "killed"? Do you think that those people are just biochemical
robots?
Tell you what, you try defending a killer in court with that argument. You'd
get disbarred real fast.
The person was killed. That kind of language is even used in the Bible.
And it rather disturbs me that you are using that kind of an argument. Death
does not disturb you? You'd be OK with mass murder because people are not
just biochemical robots, and they'd go on to their "next life" (by your Hare
Krishna religion)?
When you kill someone, you still kill them, whether their spirit goes
somewhere else or not.
Or, even if you think that someone was "killed", it is a fact that he
burglar knew that he would have to pay for his crimes, and the old lady knew
that if she went for the phone she would be shot. What's the big moral
dilemma?
I see. You are all for the burglar, poor guy! Yup, that old lady sure was
the one at fault, by your reasoning.
Hmmmm. Now, as a Christian, I should believe this, why? It expresses God's
Love and Power, how?
No, as a Christian, you should believe that no one was "killed", and free
will was upheld as far as possible. That expresses God's Love and Power.
Nonsense. Christian doctrine says nothing about the idea that no one dies.
Your Hare Krishna religion is not the least bit Christian. Sure, "free will"
was upheld, but that doesn't necessarily express God's love -- and certainly
not if He "assisted" in the killing by directly intervening in nature to
make sure the bullet did the trick.
I find it much more appropriate to believe that God created the laws of
nature that work, period, and that He does not enable or intervene in how
they work (except for the occasional miracle).
Well, you may believe that, but then your "God" will be so remote that you
needn't think of Him at all. That really does reduce Him to a "mere
mechanic".
Did I say that He didn't work at all? No. But to say that He actively
intervenes in the laws of nature to make sure that all things desired to be
done happen, even the nefarious ones, places "free will" as a virtue above
anything else -- something I have never seen proposed in a compassionate
religion. Furthermore, it is really favors the free will of the strong and
the aggressor. Seems bad.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
12 Mar 2005 05:17:06 PM |
|
|
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58CA8C.EE6F%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
in article DbHYd.8282$cN6.206@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Chris
Devol
at wrote on 03/12/05 2:13 PM:
"Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:BE58A0D3.ED21%tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net...
in article 423324F4.97C52245@rica.net, John Popelish at
jpopelish@rica.net
wrote on 03/12/05 12:20 PM:
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
Your point being? Modern science does not rule out the existence of
God. The experimental evidence that that he/she doesn't intervene in
the laws of nature.
(snip)
Or God intervenes constantly, in perfectly consistent ways,
everywhere.
;-)
Hmmm. Doesn't this reduce the Almighty to a mere mechanic? Does it not
suppress Him and make Him an instrument of unrighteousness at a whim?
He was being sarcastic.
Thanks for the clarification. I was gone a couple of days and did not get
the entire exchange.
But the answer to your question is that God is a
mechanic, but not a "mere" mechanic. He does plenty of other things.
Hmmmm. Such as?
For example, He enjoys playing with His friends.
For example, if God must constantly intervene to make the Laws of Nature
work, then why should He do so for those who are going to kill or
destroy?
Why cause the bullet to fire into the innocent? Why allow the carnage?
The free will of the individual souls, which is also a law of nature, and
which therefore God also maintains.
Hmmmm. I see. So since you have "free will", God *has* to help you
exercise
it? Sorry, that does not follow.
My "free will" is not absolute. It has natural limits. God upholds natural
law, therefore He upholds the limits of my free will. Within those limits I
can exercise my limited free will. But I could not do that unless God
maintained the limits.
I can see it now. The burglar, gun in hand, pointed at the old lady who
is
going toward her phone. She picks up the phone, he pulls the trigger,
and
God causes the bullet to fire, causes it to travel a straight path to
her
chest, rips apart the flesh and kills her.
What was "killed"? Do you think that those people are just biochemical
robots?
Tell you what, you try defending a killer in court with that argument.
You'd
get disbarred real fast.
The person was killed. That kind of language is even used in the Bible.
The body was destroyed. The person was not killed. We will keep having this
kind of argument, Ray, until you finally make up your mind to take a stand
on the soul is.
And it rather disturbs me that you are using that kind of an argument.
Death
does not disturb you? You'd be OK with mass murder because people are not
just biochemical robots, and they'd go on to their "next life" (by your
Hare
Krishna religion)?
Aren't you OK with mass murder? If not, why don't you put a stop to it once
and for all? I'm not under the impression that you are weeping for the
victims 24 hours a day. No, like all the inmates of this prison planet, you
are more or less callous to the plight of others.
Unless you're just not worried about it because deep down you really do know
that murder only destroys the body, not the person.
When you kill someone, you still kill them, whether their spirit goes
somewhere else or not.
Yes, we speak of it that way, because we are so identified with our material
bodies that we have forgotten what we really are. It is God's extraordinary
mercy that He sends His messengers from time to time to remind us that we
are not biochemical robots, and that what we really are cannot be killed or
harmed in any way.
Or, even if you think that someone was "killed", it is a fact that he
burglar knew that he would have to pay for his crimes, and the old lady
knew
that if she went for the phone she would be shot. What's the big moral
dilemma?
I see. You are all for the burglar, poor guy! Yup, that old lady sure was
the one at fault, by your reasoning.
If I was "all for the burglar" I wouldn't have said that he must pay for his
crimes. And how can you say that the old lady wasn't stupid (or excessively
proud) to take her life into her hands that way? Don't you think that
stupidity (or pride) has consequences?
Hmmmm. Now, as a Christian, I should believe this, why? It expresses
God's
Love and Power, how?
No, as a Christian, you should believe that no one was "killed", and free
will was upheld as far as possible. That expresses God's Love and Power.
Nonsense. Christian doctrine says nothing about the idea that no one dies.
Your Hare Krishna religion is not the least bit Christian. Sure, "free
will"
was upheld, but that doesn't necessarily express God's love -- and
certainly
not if He "assisted" in the killing by directly intervening in nature to
make sure the bullet did the trick.
Same old argument. Why do I bother? You never seem to listen to my reply.
I find it much more appropriate to believe that God created the laws of
nature that work, period, and that He does not enable or intervene in
how
they work (except for the occasional miracle).
Well, you may believe that, but then your "God" will be so remote that
you
needn't think of Him at all. That really does reduce Him to a "mere
mechanic".
Did I say that He didn't work at all? No. But to say that He actively
intervenes in the laws of nature to make sure that all things desired to
be
done happen, even the nefarious ones, places "free will" as a virtue above
anything else -- something I have never seen proposed in a compassionate
religion. Furthermore, it is really favors the free will of the strong and
the aggressor. Seems bad.
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
13 Mar 2005 06:42:41 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe that?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
13 Mar 2005 06:42:41 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
14 Mar 2005 03:51:15 PM |
|
|
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
15 Mar 2005 06:09:00 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:nHnZd.10766$cN6.10422@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you
believe that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you
believe that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
So you don't have the guts to face reality?
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
15 Mar 2005 06:30:29 AM |
|
|
Hemann and creativism !!
what a good joke !!!
oh sorry i forgot the Fertz!
Hymann i give you the last chance to admit your flop about the Fertz.
before it is too late ........
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
15 Mar 2005 04:58:27 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:nHnZd.10766$cN6.10422@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
My answer is no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
15 Mar 2005 05:10:10 PM |
|
|
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fMJZd.231612$0u.202104@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:nHnZd.10766$cN6.10422@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe
that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe
that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
My answer is no.
Mine is yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
17 Mar 2005 11:23:33 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:mXJZd.11742$cN6.8739@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fMJZd.231612$0u.202104@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:nHnZd.10766$cN6.10422@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe
that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe
that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
My answer is no.
Mine is yes.
Let me make sure I understand you.
Are you saying you believe that there is no evil that God has not created?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
17 Mar 2005 11:46:28 PM |
|
|
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nBt_d.256867$0u.197968@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:mXJZd.11742$cN6.8739@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fMJZd.231612$0u.202104@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:nHnZd.10766$cN6.10422@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe
that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe
that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
My answer is no.
Mine is yes.
Let me make sure I understand you.
Are you saying you believe that there is no evil that God has not created?
There is nothing whatsoever in existence that did not come from God. God is
the source of everything.
If it exists, it has its origin in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
18 Mar 2005 12:29:38 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:UWt_d.13591$cN6.9529@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
Let me make sure I understand you.
Are you saying you believe that there is no evil that God has not
created?
There is nothing whatsoever in existence that did not come from God. God
is the source of everything.
If it exists, it has its origin in God.
Why, then, does God create evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
18 Mar 2005 01:16:17 AM |
|
|
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jzu_d.256871$0u.36384@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:UWt_d.13591$cN6.9529@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
Let me make sure I understand you.
Are you saying you believe that there is no evil that God has not
created?
There is nothing whatsoever in existence that did not come from God. God
is the source of everything.
If it exists, it has its origin in God.
Why, then, does God create evil?
He likes to fight sometimes. And since He is good, He wants an opponent who
isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chosp" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
18 Mar 2005 06:05:14 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:5fv_d.13620$cN6.941@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jzu_d.256871$0u.36384@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:UWt_d.13591$cN6.9529@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
Let me make sure I understand you.
Are you saying you believe that there is no evil that God has not
created?
There is nothing whatsoever in existence that did not come from God. God
is the source of everything.
If it exists, it has its origin in God.
Why, then, does God create evil?
He likes to fight sometimes. And since He is good, He wants an opponent
who isn't.
That was really limp, brother.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
18 Mar 2005 02:08:29 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2005-03-18, Chris Devol <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jzu_d.256871$0u.36384@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:UWt_d.13591$cN6.9529@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
Let me make sure I understand you.
Are you saying you believe that there is no evil that God has not
created?
There is nothing whatsoever in existence that did not come from God. God
is the source of everything.
If it exists, it has its origin in God.
Why, then, does God create evil?
He likes to fight sometimes. And since He is good, He wants an opponent who
isn't.
Then by all appearances, he's a mean drunk.
I confine myself to combats of a more refined nature, like checkers or kismet.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism inScienceClasses" |
14 Mar 2005 05:57:44 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2005-03-14, Chris Devol <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UhnZd.229976$0u.69824@fed1read04...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:SLKYd.8708$cN6.5320@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not a blade of grass moves without the will of God. Do you believe that?
Likewise, there is no evil that God has not created. Do you believe that?
First answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
Coward.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
10 Mar 2005 02:08:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:48:14 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.
Pretty much knee-jerk reactionary sloganeering.
1. Scientific Creationism (i.e. the Henry Morris cult) is not a "precursor"
to Intelligent Design. The major players of ID did not come out of the
Morris camp.
2. Consequently, there is no "they". Bridgman is simply witch-hunting.
<snip more of the same vague, broad assertions and snobbery, without any
real analysis of science>
There aren't going to be any Intelligent Design researchers shaking in their
shoes at Bridgman's approach.
If high school kids learned proper scientific critical thinking skills they'd
understand in two seconds that this creationist claptrap masquerading as
"Intelligent Design" is just that.
So assume student A goes to a high school where they teach aforesaid skills.
His or her parents unfortunately relocate to another place which has been
infected by the "Creationism is Valid" dogma. Student A will know within two
seconds of the idiot "science" teacher opening his mouth that what is being
said is wrong, and will therefore be proof against the spreading of such
silliness.
---
David Cross
dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
10 Mar 2005 12:12:27 AM |
|
|
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
10 Mar 2005 01:01:02 AM |
|
|
<steven_pirie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110435147.351151.134160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
They don't hang around the trailer park, Cletus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
10 Mar 2005 08:48:56 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:OgSXd.4910$oO4.2341@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<steven_pirie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110435147.351151.134160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
They don't hang around the trailer park, Cletus.
Were there any such things, that's precisely where one would expect to find
them, doofus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
10 Mar 2005 12:13:35 PM |
|
|
The cast iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cygnus X-1" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
10 Mar 2005 06:13:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:12:27 -0500, wrote
(in article <1110435147.351151.134160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
It would be too easy for someone to label themselves as an ID
researcher. Let's set the bar a little higher. The claim was once
that ID isn't published in peer-reviewed journals until they managed to
slip one in, apparently by subverting the peer-review process.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes" |
11 Mar 2005 07:06:17 AM |
|
|
"On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:13:30 -0500, in article
<0001HW.BE564CDA00A77BE9F02845B0@news.radix.net>, Cygnus X-1 stated..."
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:12:27 -0500, wrote
(in article <1110435147.351151.134160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
You have some extra words in your final sentence that are superfluous.
It should read...
" There aren't...any intelligent Design researchers..."
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
It would be too easy for someone to label themselves as an ID
researcher. Let's set the bar a little higher. The claim was once
that ID isn't published in peer-reviewed journals until they managed to
slip one in, apparently by subverting the peer-review process.
Rather than speaking of the people involved, how about this:
There isn't any "intelligent design" research.
That is, there isn't anything other than trying to show that
somehow, somewhere, something is wrong with evolutionary biology.
If someone can point to any investigation into the properties
of what an "intelligent design" can produce (and, that entails, of
course, what an "intelligent design" can't produce) ...
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
