Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[chrispalasz]

If you have the Santa Spirit inside of you... you know there's a Santa because He's talking to you at all times. That's how we know.

Well... I can humor you. It's harder if you pick something like santa. Santa is said to have a gig at the North Pole... but nobody has seen it. We have satalites that would be able to detect that stuff. Also, nobody sees him flying around in a sleigh. Also... my mom told me she puts out the presents (sorry. I hope no little kids are reading this).

There are many reasons how I know there is no santa. But if I have a question similar to that, I could always pray about it... to God, who I know exists. And He will either say it's true... or false... or that I don't need to know, or answer me with some other response.

Anyway - point in fact is that you're pulling out the sick little santa argument that some clever person thought up in some philosophy class. You know very well that this argument holds no water and has no real relation with an argument for Christ. It's cute... but it's a cop-out. It doesn't change the facts, however, and that doesn't change the reality of God, and that doesn't change the knowledge of every Christian that ever lived that God exists.

[Gaunt]

it's a cop-out. It doesn't change the facts, however, and that doesn't change the reality of God, and that doesn't change the knowledge of every Christian that ever lived that God exists.

It is not a cop-out. It accurately illustrates the position you are arguing from, which is one of blind faith. It does not change the belief of every Christian, but belief does not necessarily equate to knowledge. On the contrary, saying "we know because we believe", which is what your defense boils down to, is a cop-out in that it does not do anything to support your position.

[chrispalasz]

Gaunt

It's not a belief. It is knowledge. When I was agnostic, a few years ago and I thought that Christians had a "belief" too.

Do you believe that your mother's exists? Or do you know she exists? You were born from her, right? Have you ever talked to her? Do you see her?

What's the difference?

I know God exists. God created me and everyone. I've talked to God. I've seen God, not in the sense of Him having a physical body. The only physical body He's had was Jesus. I have seen Him in many other ways, the same as you.

So, you can't know God if you never want to. Just like I will never meet your mother if I never ask you or want to. And even if you show me some elderly woman someday that COULD be your mother... hey, maybe I just won't believe you.

It's the same thing. Christians know God.

[Gaunt]

It's not a belief. It is knowledge.

Knowledge is a subset of belief, so in order for something to be knowledge, it must be belief as well. You cannot know something you do not believe.

Do you believe that your mother's exists? Or do you know she exists? You were born from her, right? Have you ever talked to her? Do you see her?

What's the difference?

I believe she exists. I may be mistaken of course. I think I was born from her, or at least so she tells me. I don't have a clear memory of the event

The difference is that my mother has physical properties by which she can be experienced objectively. I could show you an elderly lady and claim she is my mother, and of course you could disbelieve that. However, if I gave objective evidence that she was in fact my mother your disbelief would be much less justified. Objective evidence exists in both birth records and in a study of our DNA (or whatever they examine, it slips my mind at the moment) should we choose to undergo such examination.

What objective evidence for God can you offer? I contend that until you can offer justification for the belief that God exists, you cannot claim it to be knowledge.

[chrispalasz]

What objective evidence for God can you offer? I contend that until you can offer justification for the belief that God exists, you cannot claim it to be knowledge.

Of course I cannot offer physical objective evidence for God other than the entire universe.

Why should I have to? is a better question. God is keeping you alive at this very moment, you should be able to see that. At what point does a person become an individual person with a seperate mind and conciousness? What makes up a person's conciousness and intellect? Is it a bunch of chemicals constantly mixing together and a bunch of electrical signals being sent back and forth? A person who accepts that above God is truly being the more naive of the two.

Science is in every way inferior to God. It's like trying to measure the length of the universe with a desk ruler. Even if you use a yard stick... or a tape measure - that doesn't come close. And you're asking science, which is merely limited to PHYSICAL properties, to define and show who God is? Right. Anyone should BE so lucky. It's not possible to define God or show God using science. It's like trying to tell me what your mom is thinking by sending me a picture of her. It doesn't cut it and it never will. Science will explore God... but only a very small aspect of Him. It all can't be gathered using science. That does not take God away from science though.

I contend that unless you have the definite answer to the origin of life on earth and everything in the universe, you cannot claim it not to be knowledge. And ironically, if you did have the answer... we would be in agreement.

Sorry. I seem to be picking on your mom a bit.

[Lucifer]

What objective evidence for God can you offer? I contend that until you can offer justification for the belief that God exists, you cannot claim it to be knowledge.

Of course I cannot offer physical objective evidence for God other than the entire universe.

Why should I have to? is a better question. God is keeping you alive at this very moment, you should be able to see that. At what point does a person become an individual person with a seperate mind and conciousness? What makes up a person's conciousness and intellect? Is it a bunch of chemicals constantly mixing together and a bunch of electrical signals being sent back and forth? A person who accepts that above God is truly being the more naive of the two.

Science is in every way inferior to God. It's like trying to measure the length of the universe with a desk ruler. Even if you use a yard stick... or a tape measure - that doesn't come close. And you're asking science, which is merely limited to PHYSICAL properties, to define and show who God is? Right. Anyone should BE so lucky. It's not possible to define God or show God using science. It's like trying to tell me what your mom is thinking by sending me a picture of her. It doesn't cut it and it never will. Science will explore God... but only a very small aspect of Him. It all can't be gathered using science. That does not take God away from science though.

I contend that unless you have the definite answer to the origin of life on earth and everything in the universe, you cannot claim it not to be knowledge. And ironically, if you did have the answer... we would be in agreement.

Sorry. I seem to be picking on your mom a bit.

Why should you have to? Nobody's forcing you to, unless you want us to know about it. Just saying God exists doesn't cut it for us. No, I can't see that God is keeping us alive. Whoever put that into your mind. It's no wonder you can't tell us why. If God interferred, we should clearly be able to see that. And for so long, no one has told us he has. And if we can't define him physically, why should we care? We live in a physical world, and everything we do is governed by it, so why should we care about something that doesn't exist physically? You may, but we would rather think about other things besides God that don't exist. We have fun talking about infinity, as it might be useful for the physical world. You seem so sure of what you say, yet you have nothing to back it up. Even if it's not physical evidence, you should still be able to use your logic. The way I see it, you're saying it's all or nothing. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just because science might have failed there, it doesn't automatically make Christianity correct. You may like to think so, but there are other possibilities.

[chrispalasz]

No, I can't see that God is keeping us alive. Whoever put that into your mind.

God

It's no wonder you can't tell us why. If God interferred, we should clearly be able to see that.

Yes, we should! That's what I'm trying to tell you. And I know you're telling me that we don't... but that doesn't simply invalidate what I'm trying to say. I'm saying: look!

And for so long, no one has told us he has. And if we can't define him physically, why should we care?

Because your very salvation depends on it. And you will only be able to prove me right on that point.

We live in a physical world, and everything we do is governed by it, so why should we care about something that doesn't exist physically?

Not everything we do is governed by the physical world! Everything we do is governed by God Himself! What about all the things science can't explain? Physical phenomena? We explore medicine. Through observation, we know THAT many things work. But HOW? Do they work or WHY do they work? How much of that has been discovered and explained? ALMOST NONE of it!

Even if it's not physical evidence, you should still be able to use your logic. The way I see it, you're saying it's all or nothing. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Just because science might have failed there, it doesn't automatically make Christianity correct. You may like to think so, but there are other possibilities.

We do use logic... just not your logic. What's wrong with that? Many non-believers will never understand what true logic is. True logic is faith.

Listen, I know that the lack of other possibilities and theories doesn't make God the right answer. However, God does make God the right answer. I'm not going to stare him in the face and deny Him. I'm not going to hear what He says and ignore it. I'm going to listen. And I'm going to follow.[/quote][/code]

[Gaunt]

Why should I have to?

You should have to because you are proposing to introduce the teaching of the supernatural in a scientific environment, which customarily only deals with natural forces. You should have to because belief, even if it turns out to be true, does not equate to knowledge unless it has justification. You claimed to have KNOWLEDGE that God existed, for which you have offered no support other than your own subjective experience and belief.

you're asking science....to define and show who God is?

No, I asked for objective evidence to justify that belief. The universe does not qualify as evidence for God's existence, except for in a subjective manner (ie, you believe God created the universe, therefore it is evidence in your opinion. I might not, therefore it is not evidence for me.) Science could be one such source, so could logic, which is the basis for science. Historical records (sorry, the Bible doesn't count as objective, as it takes God as a given) could also qualify as objective evidence. If there is no objective evidence then it does not belong in the science classroom.

I contend that unless you have the definite answer to the origin of life on earth and everything in the universe, you cannot claim it not to be knowledge.

That is absurd. My lack of knowledge in no way impacts your claim to having it. It is your claim to have such knowledge, therefore it is you who must defend it. If it is indeed something that you know then you must be able to justify it, otherwise it is not knowledge at all, but simply a firmly held, but irrational, belief. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't make yours right after all.

However, God does make God the right answer

That is like saying Santa does make Santa the right answer. it is a nonsense statement.

True logic is faith.

True logic is not faith. Faith is based on emotions and feelings, whereas logic is based on reason. Two very different things.

Because your very salvation depends on it

If God exists, which you have yet to demonstrate in an objective fashion.

[chrispalasz]

You should have to because you are proposing to introduce the teaching of the supernatural in a scientific environment, which customarily only deals with natural forces. You should have to because belief, even if it turns out to be true, does not equate to knowledge unless it has justification. You claimed to have KNOWLEDGE that God existed, for which you have offered no support other than your own subjective experience and belief.

I do have knowledge - but seeing as how I am not greater than God... I am not deserving of this knowledge, nor am I it's owner. This knowledge was a gift. And it is available to everyone. Since I am not the giver... I cannot give you this knowledge. But if you want it - you can go directly to the source. that's what I'm saying. Do you get it? The giver is Jesus Christ. All you need to do is pray to Him and repent for your sins in His name. Confess that you're a sinner and ask Him to speak to you and that you might recieve the Holy Spirit. God is faithful. If you sincerely do this... He WILL answer you.

The existance of God is not subjective. It is absolute. (ie, the universe exists and is beyond the logic and capabilities of anything natural, therefore it is absolute evidence of God and not my subjective opinion.)

No, I asked for objective evidence to justify that belief.

Right. Objective evidence is scientific.

Historical records (sorry, the Bible doesn't count as objective, as it takes God as a given) could also qualify as objective evidence.

Alright then. What about millions and millions of historical and present documented accounts from people who once held the belief that Jesus Christ is not God but then found out that He is? That's historical evidence that did not at first take God as a given but in the end concluded that He does exist.

True logic is not faith. Faith is based on emotions and feelings, whereas logic is based on reason. Two very different things.

Faith is not based on emotions and feelings. Although I can understand how a person that doesn't have faith from God would assume that. Faith in God is a gift from Him and it is a knowledge and confirmation of His existance. I see God in the same SENSE that I see my family - just not in the same WAY.

[Lucifer]

Yes, we should! That's what I'm trying to tell you. And I know you're telling me that we don't... but that doesn't simply invalidate what I'm trying to say. I'm saying: look!

I mean if he interferes, we should be able to see that physically. Like I said, this world is physical, and if he were to interfere, there would have to be a physical difference.

Because your very salvation depends on it. And you will only be able to prove me right on that point.

You think that simply telling me that will make me believe that. Yeah right, nice try. I, as a student of science require no proof. Only supported evidence. If that doesn't work for you, then convincing me won't work. But then, I shouldn't be accusing you of trying to shove your religion down my throat, since that would be an ad hominem attack.

Not everything we do is governed by the physical world! Everything we do is governed by God Himself! What about all the things science can't explain? Physical phenomena? We explore medicine. Through observation, we know THAT many things work. But HOW? Do they work or WHY do they work? How much of that has been discovered and explained? ALMOST NONE of it!

So everything that is physical is governed by a non-physical being? I'd like to see the logic behind that. All the things that science can't explain are unexplained because science is the accumulation of human knowledge obtained through observations and tests. The unexplained things have yet to be explained by humans, and they're all there, but we just need to find it. Apparently, you don't see that knowledge could be infinite, which is the reason science does not prove--it just supports using observations and logic. This is makes more sense than religion does.

We do use logic... just not your logic. What's wrong with that? Many non-believers will never understand what true logic is. True logic is faith.

Well, I'm not asking you to use my logic. If you don't like my logic, then too bad. If you say true logic is faith, that's a contradiction. Now I'm starting to wonder if there is something wrong with your logic, but then again, I'm not about to start another ad hominem attack. Logic is using reasoning from known information to explain. Faith is just believing in something without requiring known information. You don't know that God gives you these things. You want to say it's known, yet you can't prove, much less support your claims, so it can't be known. See the difference?

Listen, I know that the lack of other possibilities and theories doesn't make God the right answer. However, God does make God the right answer. I'm not going to stare him in the face and deny Him. I'm not going to hear what He says and ignore it. I'm going to listen. And I'm going to follow.

Your answer to my point means bugger all. You've just said God is automatically the right answer if science isn't, while I've explained in detail that it isn't. In other words, you haven't used any logic to explain it at all. You can't tell me why. And if you can't, where's the logic? Remember, logic is reasoning, so it does include the question of "why". And don't try to twist the question around by saying what logic is and what it isn't. I've already defined it, and if you don't like that, then that's just too bad.