Products of Creation Science

Two thousand years from now, I bet most people will think all our modern theories are moronic and that we're all dipshits for thinking otherwise.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Adding... what to the conversation at hand? Yeah, 2000 years from now science will be eclipsed by more elaborate science. That's how it works.

You miss the point. So what if some people still believe in creationism. There's no reason to be baited or overreact to whatever some sect of Christians still persist in believing after two thousand years. Save your outrage for something more worthwhile.

I find this all hilarious as hell. See you there!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Except, Watts, that this moved away from philosophical debate and into the realm of actual issue when they started teaching Creation Science in certain classrooms in the US. Or that at any point, dozens of school systems across the United States are being lobbied to include Creation Science as curriculum, taking away from actual education.

Name a school district where this is currently being taught. The one school district where the board of education succeeded in introducing this to the curriculum every member got the boot. There is no standing court ruling where this is upheld as legal or constitutional.

There is no rampaging horde of creationists that can make it stick. (bold for emphasis)

I guess everybody needs their political demons. So we can all unite against the Jews/Blacks/Creationists/Abortionists/Women/etc or whatever agenda you're subscribing to. Hey, tolerance is only for the jews and the niggers.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

The point is that creation science is being touted as a legitimate science that kids are supposed to learn along side evolution. I have yet to see creation science evidence (unless it really is just a bible) or hypothesis (cause technically they're not even scientific theories) other than "god played with some playdoh."

Which only proves that people pass on their values. Or try to.

The Soviets taught their own brand of evolution to their children. It involved the evolution of giraffe's necks stretching together in socialist solidarity. It was based on pure scientific theory, not matter how much they twisted it for political ends. Didn't make it anymore ludicrous then I already made it sound.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

So yes, though they were overturned, the point is this was being taught in a classroom, hotshot.

Not anymore. It was overturned. End of story.

(edit)

Oh wait, it will be upheld in any future case. That's the real end of the story.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Watts: Uh the problem stems from people forcing other's kids to listen in on these so called "classes."

It has already been established that these attempts are and will be unsuccessful in the future. There's no problem unless they're successful, which doesn't seem very likely. So all you're doing is waving a red herring at me.

What are you going to do to make people stop trying pass off their values on others at any rate? Fighting bigotry with more intolerance is a losing a battle.

By continuing these pointless debates you've established one thing; they've won. As long as the debate continues they win. And they're the minority to boot. Now that's something to be enraged about!

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

it won't change the fact that there are people working to subvert the educational experience in order to pursue their own religious agenda.

What makes you think there isn't a agenda already at work? Was the Soviet Union's fine example of adaption in biological evolution not enough?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

LOL ignored for being level headed.

I'm glad that somebody else found this all amusing as much as I did.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Still Watts, what were you inferring about agendas and evolution in schools? Because I don't see any kind of agenda unless it involves not teaching kids properly.

Much like philosophy or economics, science has a long history of being co-opted to further social/political agendas. Theories of evolution and natural selection, or rather how it was interpreted spawned social agendas like eugenics (ie: racial discrimination) and political agendas like social Darwinism. (ie: colonialism) Both of which were taught in science classrooms.

It's complacent or lazy to assume that other agendas are not at work in modern day curriculum. Presenting and passing on modern day values onto the next generation.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Last I checked the science curriculum didn't have an agenda aside from education and the teaching of the scientific process. Unless there is some secret society trying to get us all in goggles and white lab coats. RR you sick, sick man.

It's really simple if you actually think about it. (or read the topic with any degree of reading comprehension) I was agreeing with everyone else in their views about "creation science". Brady already pointed that out. Yet because I did not meet their standard of persecuting or leaving the creationists alone to pursue their agenda, I was instantly met with animosity. This being no different when it comes to the reception that skepticism regarding current scientific issues like global warming are met with. Despite the pre-existing scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'll spell it out. Since the inception of public education and continuing well into this day.... the overall agenda is;

Uniformity. -and when someone dares challenge that uniformity- Animosity.

It's even easier to tell what's not being taught in public schools. Reading comprehension and critical thought. Though I do not know if that's intentional, or just a byproduct of so many simple minded people.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Most everything I learned about evolution I pretty much taught myself. I can't even recall taking anything resembling a biology class in High School, and I went to a school with a high number of college-going graduates.

If you would've taken biology when in high school, (it was a requirement for both my middle and high school) when you got to the subject
of natural selection it would've stressed three important values; freedom, competition, and the struggle for survival. The cornerstones of capitalism as far as I'm concerned. Which I have no problem with.

But I'm not a Marxist. Surely they could complain about a bias in the way Natural Selection was portrayed.

Science is not inherently bias or dogmatic. It just depends on how it's portrayed. (bold for emphasis)

Originally Posted by RABicle

Last time I checked I wasn't living in Nazi Germany. Eugenics? Come on now.

It's funny that you mention that. Eugenics was big particularly in the United States and Canada until Nazi Germany took it upon itself to prove it's wrong. Sterilization programs continued past the Holocaust. We just did it to the mentally impaired instead of people who weren't racially pure.

I'm sure there was people who were skeptical about eugenics at the time. That's half the problem, because if you did you would not only just be met with animosity. You probably would've died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

The other problem of course is that the majority of people bought into the eugenics theory (that eventually led to the Holocaust) in the first place. The minority of skeptical people who were smart just kept their mouths shut or were marginalized.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

We're obviously not pushing for eugenics any more,

I'm not so sure about that either. Most of the eugenicists and organizations pushing eugenics were forced into the scientific underground. They changed over into genetics or other areas of biology. This doesn't mean their
underlining ideology has been stamped out. The degree of manipulation at work depends on the positions of influence former eugenicists hold in current
scientific research. Like say, the Human Genome Project.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

Wow, and you use this as comparison with your skepticism with evolutionary theory?

I have no problem with evolutionary theory, outside of the Soviet example I used earlier and the Marxist take on natural selection.

How many times do I have to say I'm not for creationism, "creation science", or intelligent design? Nevermind, I'm just going to stop.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Also I like how you're hopping on the train ride of "I don't agree with forcefully sterilizing people against their will" like this is a badge of honor. welcome to the rest of the world, numbnuts.

Simple minded insults from a simple minded person.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Magi

The historical example you presented takes a leap of logic here that does not exactly constitute evidence for your hypothesis when it comes to hidden agenda in my opinion.

Why should political or social sciences be held to a higher standard of exactness then regular science? It is after all only a hypothesis.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Our school system was imported from Prussia. It was the intent of the social planners behind the reform to make kids uniform, it's just that nobody's really caught on or cares about it.

I think you mentioned that before. I just forgot the link you posted. Something to do with the "Underground History of American Education" right?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.