Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching
Star News Online ^ | September 16, 2008 | Ana Ribeiro

Posted on 09/17/2008 8:43:45 AM PDT by Soliton

The Brunswick County school board is looking for a way for creationism to be taught in the classroom side by side with evolution.

"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

When asked by a reporter, his fellow board members all said they were in favor of creationism being taught in the classroom.

The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

(Excerpt) Read more at starnewsonline.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevo; education; evolution; id
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
The fools fight on.
1 posted on 09/17/2008 8:43:45 AM PDT by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Exactly. Evolution and faith are wholly compatible. Efforts such as this make Christians look silly.


2 posted on 09/17/2008 8:52:21 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

This is scandalous. It is absolute essential that we teach water and methane—presto—becoming complex amino acids and the species evolution despite lack of support from the fossil record!


3 posted on 09/17/2008 8:54:28 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
We saw citrate plus e.coli “evolve now”. What a cretin.

The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is NOT taught as a theory? Gee, seems to me that “theory” is the first word used to describe it. As far as “proof”; no theory is Science is ever “proven” but provisionally accepted pending contradictory data or a refinement of the theory that better explains data and predicts phenomena.

4 posted on 09/17/2008 8:56:04 AM PDT by allmendream (Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! RAH RAH RAH! McCain/Palin2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

You may have reconciled them yourself, but I don’t understand how a strong theory is threatened by pointing out its weaknesses—unless evolution requires more faith than Christianity.


5 posted on 09/17/2008 8:56:11 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Absolutely absurd.


6 posted on 09/17/2008 8:56:54 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

If death, nature red in tooth and claw, the propellent of evolution, was good from the Beginning, why would we need Christ to triumph over it?

I used to be an evolutionist.

Then I was a theistic evolutionist.

Ultimately, I saw that God Created, just as He said He did.

And the ever shifting landscape of evolutionism and its vast array of hoaxes and false positives is far more silly than that.


7 posted on 09/17/2008 8:59:54 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

I am totally OK with creationism being taught. Just not in science class.

Imagine what public school teachers, who might be appropriately accused of distorting evolution, would do to creationism. And as often as not, not in the favor of creationism.


8 posted on 09/17/2008 9:00:32 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

“This is scandalous. It is absolute essential that we teach water and methane—presto—becoming complex amino acids and the species evolution despite lack of support from the fossil record!”

THE CARBON ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTION OF MURCHISON AMINO ACIDS
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1036.pdf


9 posted on 09/17/2008 9:01:29 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

The seem to have shot themselves in the foot before stepping outside.


10 posted on 09/17/2008 9:03:09 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

What type of finding might you accept as evidence against creation?


11 posted on 09/17/2008 9:04:41 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Even their lawyer seems to be unaware of the constitutional restrictions.


12 posted on 09/17/2008 9:05:46 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

1st hour: Creationism
2nd hour: Sex Education
3rd hour: Flat Earth Geography
4th hour: Sex Education Lab
5th hour: Advanced Numerology
6th hour: Biblical Prophecies
7th hour: Non-Western Mythologies
8th hour: Islamic Studies


13 posted on 09/17/2008 9:05:51 AM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I hear they are considering Paula Deen for School Superintendent


14 posted on 09/17/2008 9:08:42 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

This guy's no rocket surgeon

15 posted on 09/17/2008 9:13:01 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Does anyone remember the olden days when the US presidential election was boring?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

At least he’s not asking why there are still monkeys. Yet.


16 posted on 09/17/2008 9:31:30 AM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

The point is that I would be willing to evaluate—and as a taxpayer would feel better served—by a critique of all the contending theories. If creationists merely wished to include a unit on the intelligent design community’s critique of evolution, how would that be threatening?


17 posted on 09/17/2008 10:10:49 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

I understand and respect that, but creationism has to actually qualify as a theory first. Creationists will not have an answer to my previous question, so creationism is not a scientific theory. It is entirely consistent, in my view, to believe that God created everything, and that he chose the mechanism of evolution to get us here.


18 posted on 09/17/2008 10:19:59 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th
The point is that I would be willing to evaluate—and as a taxpayer would feel better served—by a critique of all the contending theories.

A fine sentiment, but there are no alternate theories contending with evolution. This in not my opinion; it is the opinion of the Discovery Institute and the leading proponents of Intelligent Design.

The desire to believe that intervention occurred in the history of living things is not a theory.

19 posted on 09/17/2008 10:22:32 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dmz
I am totally OK with creationism being taught. Just not in science class.

Agreed. They'll do more good teaching it as part of a philosophy curriculum, where the can also expand on a much broader range of topics and how religious philosophies apply to them.

20 posted on 09/17/2008 10:32:29 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: js1138
A fine sentiment, but there are no alternate theories contending with evolution. This in not my opinion; it is the opinion of the Discovery Institute and the leading proponents of Intelligent Design.

I think you're missing the point. Even if you've got the "theory-game" locked up by a majority of the guild, surely the guild would not be threatened by a critique of what it claims to be the only theory in town? It isn't just wild-eyed pentacostals asking for a critique, unless you think Ben Stein is among that number?
21 posted on 09/17/2008 10:49:51 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

I’ve written two responses, only to have them eaten by some FR bug. Posting here has become an exercise in frustration.


22 posted on 09/17/2008 11:13:17 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

I’ve written two responses, only to have them eaten by some FR bug. Posting here has become an exercise in frustration.


23 posted on 09/17/2008 11:13:40 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th
It isn't just wild-eyed pentacostals asking for a critique, unless you think Ben Stein is among that number?

No. I think he's a lawyer and a comedian; two professions where total honesty, strict accuracy, and unbiased presentation are not regarded as essential in presenting a point of view.

24 posted on 09/18/2008 7:13:24 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Does anyone remember the olden days when the US presidential election was boring?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
No. I think he's a lawyer and a comedian; two professions where total honesty, strict accuracy, and unbiased presentation are not regarded as essential in presenting a point of view.

You conveniently ignored the scientists Ben represented in his recent documentary, but, even if that were not the case, are you aware how protective of the medieval guild you are beginning to sound? "Evolution is our theory. It cannot be questioned. It cannot be critiqued." It doesn't sound like science to me.
25 posted on 09/18/2008 7:51:01 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
The fools fight on

Well, as long as you put it that way, perhaps we might expect you to be able to offer a scientific account of exactly how accidental concatenations of organic molecules cause wisdom and folly.

Cordially,

26 posted on 09/18/2008 7:58:48 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
scientific account of exactly how accidental concatenations of organic molecules cause wisdom and folly.

But you don't understand. Evolution is our theory. It is the only theory. There is no other theory. You need to have faith.
27 posted on 09/18/2008 8:25:15 AM PDT by farmer18th (Iraqi Nation Building GWB-Style: "No law that contradicts.. Islam may be established")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
we might expect you to be able to offer a scientific account of exactly how accidental concatenations of organic molecules cause wisdom and folly.

Isaac Asimov and Michael Moore

28 posted on 09/18/2008 8:48:30 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Isaac Asimov is as dead as a doornail and Michael Moore is fat. I guess dust and blubber have slightly different atomic makeups, but what sense does it make to praise or blame physical forces for anything, or to assume that matter in motion causing whatever it causes is either wise or foolish? Is the moon foolish or wise for its orbit around the earth? How can an impersonal, physical process of chance/necessity like evolution produce something contrary, or wrong, or foolish to itself?

What are you comparing the universe to in order to say that there's something wrong with it?

Cordially,

29 posted on 09/18/2008 11:35:36 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
How can an impersonal, physical process of chance/necessity like evolution produce something contrary, or wrong, or foolish to itself?

The process of natural selection.

How can nothing produce God?

30 posted on 09/18/2008 12:14:08 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
The process of natural selection.

Natural selection is what it is - an effect or effects of prior physical causes. There's nothing wise or foolish about physical processes. They just are.

How can nothing produce God?

God, by definition, is not a thing, is not contingent, and consequently, not something that was produced. The question as to how can nothing produce something is a question for you, not me.

What are you comparing the universe to in order to find something wrong with it?

Cordially,

31 posted on 09/18/2008 12:34:28 PM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
God, by definition, is not a thing

Good! finally someone who knows the definition of "God". What is it?

32 posted on 09/18/2008 1:58:42 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
God, by definition, is not a thing

Good! finally someone who knows the definition of "God". What is it?

Your question is inappropriate.

"not a thing" is the Old English nān þing "no thing" (the indefinite article is intrusive as nān/no was only originally used before consonants.

The Þhing was the deliberative Assembly of the Anglo-Saxon people and by extension came to be used for matters and subjects that were "Thing worthy" of being considered in legislatures and judicial assemblies, or indeed any matter that should be considered.

Saying something was nān þing in Middle English was to say in was it something not worth considering, reckoning, or mentioning.

So "God, by definition, is not a thing" is stating "Who cares? it doesn't matter"

33 posted on 09/18/2008 8:12:57 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; Soliton
Clever! I've got it. Why bother using a common word in it's modern, primary sense to distinguish between a non-contingent personal being and every other contingent object when you can use it in its archaic Scandinavian etymological sense to make a funny, irrelevant word game!

Cordially,

34 posted on 09/19/2008 8:02:08 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; Soliton
Clever! I've got it. Why bother using a common word in it's modern, primary sense to distinguish between a non-contingent personal being and every other contingent object when you can use it in its archaic Scandinavian etymological sense to make a funny, irrelevant word game!

Cordially,

35 posted on 09/19/2008 8:02:09 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
You have twice declined to answer the question as to what are you comparing the universe to in order to say that there's something wrong with it.

You do not need a definition of God because you already have knowledge of Him (that you suppress) in that He reveals Himself continually to you through the natural order, through your conscience, and through your very use of reason.

Nevertheless, I will humor you with a definition fit for the occasion. God is that self-existent and self-determined, free of all contingency One Who is the necessary precondition for your attempts to make sense out such notions as wisdom and foolishness that you use, but which you cannot account for or justify on the basis of your own naturalistic world view.

Your unacknowledged presupposition in post #1 of this thread is that there is an absolute standard by which such things as wisdom can be measured and found lacking, but the existence of an absolute, non-material and authoritative standard is a presupposition that is at odds with your own assumptions about the nature of the cosmos.

On your terms, the preconditions for this very discussion are nothing but matter in motion. You have random neuron firings. Other people have other random neuron firings. So what? What the essential difference is between the chemical reactions in the brains of those you categorize as fools and any other chemical reaction you cannot say. So why are some chemical reactions just there, neither true nor false, while other chemical reactions you categorize as true or false, or wise or foolish? The internal contradiction inherent in your position makes it impossible for you to say. Thus, your condemnation of some people as fools exposes your reliance on the notion of an absolute standard of wisdom, which is based on unacknowledged presuppositions and assumptions which you claim to reject.

Cordially,

36 posted on 09/19/2008 10:49:16 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
You have twice declined to answer the question as to what are you comparing the universe to in order to say that there's something wrong with it.

Please point out where I said there was something "wrong" with the universe.

You do not need a definition of God

Yes I do and you said you knew what the definition of "God" is. Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.

37 posted on 09/19/2008 11:20:11 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Please point out where I said there was something "wrong" with the universe.

If you want to nitpick, I did not use the word "say" literally, as if I were actually quoting you using the word "wrong", but merely to posit the logical point that in order for the notion of "fool" to be intelligible at all there must be some standard by which to measure whether or not a designation of certain collections of atoms are silly or stupid or lack judgment or sense. I was positing the notion of "wrong" in the sense of not measuring up to a standard.

Unless you are prepared to admit that the notion of fool is completely meaningless you must assume some sort of dichotomy or dualism in the physical makeup of the cosmos that enables you to categorize some chemical reactions as foolish and other chemical reactions as just chemical reactions. What I am asking you to account for or justify is the distinction that makes some chemical reactions foolish and some chemical reactions just chemical reactions.

Yes I do and you said you knew what the definition of "God" is. Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.

Are you attacking the quality of the definition I gave you, or are you saying that I did not give you a definition?

Since you you claim that nothing can be said to be said to exist unless it can be defined, and you are either unable or unwilling to give me an account of the term "fool", does it then follow that fools cannot be said to exist?

I guess I could then ask you if Creationists are something that cannot be said to exist, who you arguing with?

Cordially,

38 posted on 09/19/2008 9:20:02 PM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
either unable or unwilling to give me an account of the term "fool",

The word "fool" has an accepted definition whether God exists or not. Definitions are the creation of man and are arrived at through consensus. There is no great philosophical meaning to be arrived at by asking me over and over about universal dichotomies or dualities. Look in the dictionary under "fool". My definition and yours will be the same.

39 posted on 09/19/2008 9:41:46 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Why are you even here on FR, sagar? You may not believe that God created “all this,” but that gives you no reason to defame Bible-believing Christians, equating them with flat-earthers, numerology, mythology and Islam.

Did a Christian offend you when you were young? On behalf of all Christians, I apologize that we’ve said or done something that’s led you to ridicule the Creator.


40 posted on 09/19/2008 10:02:29 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

QUICK NOTE TO ALL BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS:

There are thousands of Freepers. These threads bring out a dozen or two Freepers who’ve concluded that God is irrelevant, that He did not in fact create “all this.” They are not open to dialog, not open to considering the evidence against their theories, not open to the possibility that the Creator in fact exists.

My advice for non-atheists: Ignore these kinds of threads. I’ve found them to be a waste of time. I’ve wasted hours trying to dialog with anti-Christian, anti-Scripture, anti-evidence Freepers. Soliton may be a fine Republican, but, like his pro-Darwin pals, is blind to the evidence in favor of a Creator. Don’t waste your breath with this gang of 20.


41 posted on 09/19/2008 10:08:14 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmer18th

ToE teaching should be honest about the lack of evidence for it.


42 posted on 09/19/2008 10:20:59 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theo
QUICK NOTE TO ALL BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS: >p>Why post this tripe to me?
43 posted on 09/19/2008 10:21:12 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Theo

“Why are you even here on FR, sagar?”

FreeRepublic is the finest current event indexer and I find majority of the posts here to be insightful and enlightening. You can’t get non-socialistic material much elsewhere. I am not leaving just because I disagree on a couple of points.

“You may not believe that God created “all this,” but that gives you no reason to defame Bible-believing Christians, equating them with flat-earthers, numerology, mythology and Islam. Did a Christian offend you when you were young? On behalf of all Christians, I apologize that we’ve said or done something that’s led you to ridicule the Creator.”

I will now start pleasing the Creator by protesting the teaching of the Plate Tectonics theory that — by taking credit away from God’s punishment — gives credit to magical and un-Christian “lithosphere” that supposedly moves.


44 posted on 09/19/2008 11:46:59 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; Diamond

“Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.”

Perhaps you mean implicitely “defined” or that some terms have meaning even if not easily definable. I’m assuming you’re not speaking of ostesibly defined entities.

I’ve never come across an adequate definition for the color “red”, at least as a qualia though I have little doubts that the color “red” exists (definable or not).


45 posted on 09/19/2008 11:57:39 PM PDT by TrevorSnowsrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TrevorSnowsrap
I’ve never come across an adequate definition for the color “red”, at least as a qualia though I have little doubts that the color “red” exists (definable or not).

visible red light is an electromagnetic wave that has a wavelength of about 650 nm.

46 posted on 09/20/2008 12:55:12 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

“visible red light is an electromagnetic wave that has a wavelength of about 650 nm.”

I knew that response would come up and that’s why I specifically referred to the *qualia* of the color “red” which is totally different.

Sorry.


47 posted on 09/20/2008 6:16:08 AM PDT by TrevorSnowsrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TrevorSnowsrap

“Qualia” is a philosophical dodge used by lazy philosophers and yet it exists. I know because it has a definition.


48 posted on 09/20/2008 6:26:55 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

““Qualia” is a philosophical dodge used by lazy philosophers and yet it exists.”

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. In the phrase “yet it exists”, what “it” are you referring to? Oh, and it’s a perfectly valid term used to distinguish the epxerience of something vs. a physical description.

“I know because it has a definition.”

Uh, what do you supposedly “know” and what “it” are you referring to in the above statement?

It sounds like you don’t have an answer to my objection.


49 posted on 09/20/2008 6:33:38 AM PDT by TrevorSnowsrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TrevorSnowsrap
Uh, what do you supposedly “know” and what “it” are you referring to in the above statement?

For some "thing" to be said to exist, it must have a definition. That is how we know what "it" is to which we are referring. "Qualia" exists as a concept. Concepts are "things". "Qualia" has an agreed upon definition.

If I asked you if Fizzleputers really exist, your first reaction would be for me to define what a Fizzleputer is. ("What the hell is a Fizzleputer?"). To claim that "God" exists, you must be prepared to state what your definition of "God" is. The original poster stated, "God, by definition". I simply asked him for that definition since he claimed to know. Since then, I have been bombarded by you with philosophy 101. With all your sophistry and angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense, you haven't addressed a fundamental fact of epistemology and debate. Understanding begins with definitions.

50 posted on 09/20/2008 6:58:28 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson