A step in the right direction

[MadeFromDust]

Yesterday, after almost no debate, the Indiana State Senate approved a bill that would allow its schools to teach the origin stories of various religions when a class touches on the origin of life. It now moves on to the state's House, where one of its cosponsors is currently the Speaker of the House.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...es-bill-putting-religion-in-science-class.ars

I guess this is a response to secular studies doing such an awesome job at explaining the origins of life. Like I said before, present different theories to the students and let them decide for themselves what they want to believe. Naturalistic evolution accounting for life is hardly a closed case.

 

[HailBlazers]

Like I said before, present different theories to the students and let them decide for themselves what they want to believe.

Agreed, coddling our students with political correctness does not serve them in the long run.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Depends on where it's taught.

Creationism doesn't belong in a science curriculum but in a philosophy or comparative religious studies it does.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

While I believe fully in creationism, I also believe in separation of church & state. As such, I agree with Sly (but don't tell him that) on this one.

 

[MARIS61]

I guess Indiana is so wealthy they don't need federal funds for their schools, or care if their children are used as political pawns for corporate religion.

In order to retain teachers who will teach such nonsense they will have to settle for the worst of the worst.

 

[speeds]

Time for Astrology and Alchemy to be added to the science curriculum as well.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Time for Astrology and Alchemy to be added to the science curriculum as well.

Don't forget the ouija boards.

 

[Eastoff]

Time for the flying spaghetti monster, the teaching of the buddha, the teaching of the quran, the teachings of the hindu upanishads, the sikhs, the native americans... MAN how are they going to have time for science in the science class?!

 

[magnifier661]

Good stuff!

 

[MadeFromDust]

‎"But researchers in Toronto found that in human patients some of these cells
responded not only when the patient himself was poked with a needle – as expected – but also fired
equally when the patient watched another patient being poked. These neurons (mirror neurons) were
dissolving the barrier between the “self” and others – showing that our brains are actually “wired up” for
empathy and compassion"

Another assault on reason. Go God!

 

[magnifier661]

Another assault on reason. Go God!

Yeah I've read that before. Explains a soul.

 

[crowTrobot]

Another assault on reason. Go God!

evolution explains empathetic reactions to visual stimuli just fine without god. nothing at all unreasonable about it. if anything it's what you would expect given how evolution often ends up overcompensating. that our pain centers would be on such a hair trigger that they would react when we only see someone being poked isn't surprising.

i have no problem teaching kids about the existence of the belief in creationism in social or religious studies. however if they are attempting to teach it as an alternate scientific theory to evolution, dover set a legal precedent against that which would be virtually impossible to get past, and science teachers if told to do it would uniformly refuse anyway. that battle is over.

 

[crowTrobot]

Yeah I've read that before. Explains a soul.

in the same way puking when you see something unbearably gross explains a soul, yeah : )

 

[MadeFromDust]

evolution explains empathetic reactions to visual stimuli just fine without god. nothing at all unreasonable about it. if anything it's what you would expect given how evolution often ends up overcompensating. that our pain centers would be on such a hair trigger that they would react when we only see someone being poked isn't surprising.

i have no problem teaching kids about the existence of the belief in creationism in social or religious studies. however if they are attempting to teach it as an alternate scientific theory to evolution, dover set a legal precedent against that which would be virtually impossible to get past, and science teachers if told to do it would uniformly refuse anyway. that battle is over.

lol, sure it does! Another baseless claim about evolution that you can twist to any way for your liking. You sound like the typical evolutionist to me, there's no proof that your theory is even true yet it can account for all the tiny nuances of human nature without any supporting evidence.

 

[magnifier661]

in the same way puking when you see something unbearably gross explains a soul, yeah : )

What ur soul can't be grossed out?

 

[magnifier661]

Crow I suggest u read "who is Adam?".

 

[crowTrobot]

lol, sure it does! Another baseless claim about evolution that you can twist to any way for your liking. You sound like the typical evolutionist to me, there's no proof that your theory is even true yet it can account for all the tiny nuances of human nature without any supporting evidence.

whatever. IF evolution were true it would easily explain the phenomenon, so what you posted is irrelevant as evidence for anything. if you've already rejected evolution you're going to have to believe even the most commonplace things in biology are miracles, so something like reacting to visual stimuli doesn't add anything extra.

 

[MadeFromDust]

whatever. IF evolution were true it would easily explain the phenomenon, so what you posted is irrelevant as evidence for anything. if you've already rejected evolution you're going to have to believe even the most commonplace things in biology are miracles, so something like reacting to visual stimuli doesn't add anything extra.

I never said they were miracles, just shows that we are made by our wonderful God : ) Although with God I'm not sure you can rule out any sort of miracles, He has the diving hand over all of His creation. Hopefully you will someday know this truth about God.

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

- Jesus Christ

 

[magnifier661]

whatever. IF evolution were true it would easily explain the phenomenon, so what you posted is irrelevant as evidence for anything. if you've already rejected evolution you're going to have to believe even the most commonplace things in biology are miracles, so something like reacting to visual stimuli doesn't add anything extra.

In fairness that is an extremely straw man rebuttal. Just because one may not believe in evolution doesn't mean that cell division or hormones can't already be instilled in every creature. It isn't just evolution or creation.

It's already not "god vs. science" anymore. It's actually "science vs. science".

 

[crowTrobot]

In fairness that is an extremely straw man rebuttal. Just because one may not believe in evolution doesn't mean that cell division or hormones can't already be instilled in every creature. It isn't just evolution or creation.

It's already not "god vs. science" anymore. It's actually "science vs. science".

the subject of this thread is evolution vs creation, and there are no other theories. if you've got one speak up.

 

[magnifier661]

the subject of this thread is evolution vs creation, and there are no other theories. if you've got one speak up.

Creation science versus evolution science. I didn't say there was a different science. Your straw man was making a mock that if evolution didn't exist the simplest form of biology would be miracles.

 

[crowTrobot]

Creation science versus evolution science. I didn't say there was a different science. Your straw man was making a mock that if evolution didn't exist the simplest form of biology would be miracles.

it's not a straw man. it's what creationists believe - biology wouldn't exist at all without divine intervention.

my only point was there's nothing particularly special about biological reaction to visual stimuli. if you accept evolution it's just as easily explained by evolution as anything else in biology is. if you reject evolution everything else in biology would be just as unexpected.

 

[MadeFromDust]

it's not a straw man. it's what creationists believe - biology wouldn't exist at all without divine intervention.

my only point was there's nothing particularly special about biological reaction to visual stimuli. if you accept evolution it's just as easily explained by evolution as anything else in biology is. if you reject evolution everything else in biology would be just as unexpected.

"visual stimuli" and being wired for empathy and compassion for others are two entirely different things. Lame copout answer.

 

[crowTrobot]

"visual stimuli" and being wired for empathy and compassion for others are two entirely different things.

according to evolution empathy is just an evolved emotional reaction like everything else.

and the results of the study you cited don't necessarily indicate "compassion" is hardwired. that's just you're anthropocentric assumption. if you understand evolution it's more likely that we have evolved such a strong instinct to react to and avoid pain that those centers are triggered when we simply observe something we know causes it.

Lame copout answer.

it seems that way to you because you have the grasp of what the theory of evolution is about of a 3 year old, while having an extremely egocentric personality that allows you to somehow mentally validate the notion that you know more about evolution than evolutionary scientists. lethal combination.

 

[MadeFromDust]

according to evolution empathy is just an evolved emotional reaction like everything else.

and the results of the study you cited don't necessarily indicate "compassion" is hardwired. that's just you're anthropocentric assumption. if you understand evolution it's more likely that we have evolved such a strong instinct to react to and avoid pain that those centers are triggered when we simply observe something we know causes it.

It doesn't matter what we discover about humans or nature, people who presuppose evolution is true will just credit evolution for it being that way, then cite or makeup an unprovable theory behind it and present it as fact. It's really no different than "goddidit", just a more fancy label I guess. At no point will we discover something that will make all evolutionists turn and say "you know what, naturalistic evolution couldn't have done that, so maybe there is a Creator behind things." A lot of scientists have actually come to this conclusion over the years, but the staunch ones who refuse to let a divine foot through the door will attempt to explain it "rationally" through made up, unprovable assumptions or simply say "I don't know, but we're working on it". Some people just want badly for God not to exist, rather that to face His reality and live by His rules, and will leave no stone unturned in an attempt to disprove Him. If you don't think this is a factor or is some conspiracy then you are being naive.

it seems that way to you because you have the grasp of what the theory of evolution is about of a 3 year old, while having an extremely egocentric personality that allows you to somehow mentally validate the notion that you know more about evolution than evolutionary scientists. lethal combination.

I know enough about it to know it's largely made up and unproven/provable.

 

[crowTrobot]

I know enough about it to know it's largely made up and unproven/provable.

must be nice to be the most intelligent man in the world, able to simply take a cursory look at something the world's most brilliant scientists have been working on for decades and know it's "largely made up". they should make commercials about you bowling overhand etc.

 

[julius]

If we're going to do away with political correctness, then we need to keep fucking morons out of the decisions of what should and shouldn't be taught because they have no clue. I don't think religous people should have a say what a PUBLIC school teaches.

 

[jlprk]

If religion gets equal time in secular schools, then atheism should get equal time in Sunday School and in church sermons.

Is it a deal?
-----------------
On another matter, an article about Army atheists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16859421

 

[magnifier661]

If religion gets equal time in secular schools, then atheism should get equal time in Sunday School and in church sermons.

Is it a deal?
-----------------
On another matter, an article about Army atheists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16859421

Actually no deal. Christian Sunday schools are privately held. Now if you want to start a school of "Atheists" then you are more than happy to do what evs.

 

[Eastoff]

Actually no deal. Christian Sunday schools are privately held. Now if you want to start a school of "Atheists" then you are more than happy to do what evs.

Churches are exempt from taxes. That is federal money they are exempt from.