Quote Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
This is like me asking an evolutionist to "please show me the lack of existence of creationism PLEASE!"

Are you serious about this?

Are you being purposely ignorant to annoy me?
To be fair, he asked you a question, and you are dodging it entirely here. Answer the question, please.


Creationism itself can always contain the stereotype of the teachings of the Judea Christian God, yet what you fail to realise is that creationism and the teaching of it will only lead to a religious influx of doctrines and beliefs if we are still to pertain to the thinking that we must have a centralized theory of belief which is also founded upon no evidence as the spearhead of learning.

There is no need to being in creationism into schools alongside with Judea Christian teachings.

We donā??t need to do this, we donā??t have to, like you have pointed out, as there are many different theories to creationism there is also a number of different teachings for evolution (As has been pointed out earlier on in the thread) but teaching universal evolution does not always mean we must also teach every other theory of evolution, singularly the fact that they are all theories puts them on par in terms of evidence etc, which also puts creationism on par with evolution.

So why I ask, we donā??t have the same ideas to teach creationism as we do when we teach other theories of evolution.
Because, the theory of creationism goes against some peoples religoius beliefs. It excludes some religions, and includes others, which in turn promotes some religions, while "disproving" others.

Teaching evolution does not mean we must teach other aspects of evolution and all other schools of thought, the same applies with creationism; the universal theories do not change in their concepts from the flying spaghetti monster to God.
So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"? Because if you go past that at all, you are walking into the realm of a specific religion or religions, and are then promoting those religious beliefs above others.

It is still creationism.
There is a difference between the simple concept of creationism meaning that something created all that we see, and the specific versions of creationism that people want to teach in the schools.

I am no creationist, (you may find this hard to believe) but my arguments are in no way against evolution or in favour of creationism, my arguments are in favour of the fact that each can be classed as viable as the other!
I havent slated you as anything yet, especially not a creationist. Some people on these forums dont understand that you can talk about a subject and not bring in any bias, or even argue for something that you dont believe in.

And I believe that there is some viablity in creationism, but I dont think a basic form of creationism deserves to be taught in class, because to exclude religion from it, leaves you with nothing more then a simple statement and thats it.


Your only argument against this (because your a philosopher which means you should or must consider even your own theories of philosophy you may believe in) is the fact that this will slowly bring the church united with state education.

Can you explain exactly how this will happen?
That is one of my arguements yes. And as I admited, its a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but this is one of the building blocks towards a government religion. First you have schools teaching a specific religious viewpoint, which gives you the foothold to put more and more religious type things in the schools. Public schools should not promote any religion, ever. Freedom of religion is an important trait of this country, and teaching creationism leads itself to pushing a specific religions viewpoints, as there is no point in teaching creationism if you are going to teach its most basic form. A single statement does not a class make.

Can you proclaim here and now that this WILL happen?
Sir, if I could do that, I would be alot richer at the moment. All I can state is how I feel about the subject, and what I think will happen. No one ever has a way to state for certain how something will happen in the future.

Im sure there are creationists whom believe in their theories without believing in a religion.
That some higher being created everything? Ok, thats fine, but I dont think for a second that that is what will be taught in Louisiana. It will be a christian focused version of creationism. Its a christian group that is getting the funding to do it.

I was once a creationism who was very far from the doctrines of religion, so why on earth, if I learned this (creationism thinking) in school would it bring me closer to indoctrination to the bible??

Has the teachings of evolution dragged you to the doctrine of the origin of species?
I dont believe that evolution has to have anything to do with our origin. I believe that while its possible for evolution to be the key, that there is nothing in the evidence that can prove that without a doubt. However, the true purpose behind the theory of evolution, showing that things do evolve over time, is 100% true in my eyes, and is easily provable.

Too often people combine the theory of evolution with some sort of origin theory. In its basic form, without hyperbole, evolution just says that over time things evolve. Its through other theories that you see things like we evolved from monkeys or single cell organisms and whatnot.



Tell me sir, how can you know that those Gods listed there are not made up?
I am not the one who made a statement of fact. I do not state that any gods are real, or not real, as I can not ever really know. Its why I asked you that question, because obviously to make a statement of fact like that, you must have undeniable proof of such things. The burden of proof is on you in this instance.

I like this statement, you are a philosopher and not im guessing an out right evolutionist which is why I wont brandish you a complete hypocrite lacking universal understanding of the fact that evolution is as dogmatic as creationism, due to the fact it is lacking the same evidence for universal truth as creationism.
No. THe theory of evolution has been proven. Its a fact. The hyperboles and other theories that have come from the theory of evolution are subject to questioning. There is undeniable scientific proof that things evolve as time goes on. That has nothing to do with theories on origin or anything else.

Yes, people are very dogmatic in anything they believe, its in the average persons nature. People dont feel right stating they believe in something but they arent entirely sure if its true.


If you actually believe or look into evolution you will find that this is the actual universal concept of Darwinist evolution, right back to the smallest molecule, it actually (according to evolutionists) came out of a rock.
Sorry, you are confusing theories. The theory of evolution doesnt even begin to try to approach origin. Its been a common public misconception, because of popular soundbytes from people, that make them think that evolution HAS to have anything to do with origins. It can explain it if you want, but it does not do so on its own, nor does it try to.



Which is why I donā??t expect you to understand the above segment of obvious information, but if you were a good philosopher, I would.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Is this supposed to be an insult towards me? I understand what you are saying, but your entire premise is flawed because you view evolution as something that has to do with origins.



If you see plenty of evidence, then why is evolution still a theory?
I dont know if you have noticed, but everything in science is a theory. We dont hold any "facts", because there is no way to know the future, and you dont know for sure that everything that happened before wasnt just a giant coincidence.

A philosopher might say that everything in science is just a theory, and that there is no way to prove anything as being a fact. The future is always ahead of you, and plenty of people in the past thought they had facts at the time, but as time went on it was proven all they had was ignorance.

Like I said before, evolution is very good for explaining how lower form animals can form into higher form, yet to apply it to our own cause of existence and coming contains as much evidence as believing in the great african tinman.
Evolution doesnt have to explain WHERE humans came from. People using evolution for their own causes caused that idea to exist. Evolution just explains how things work right now, and it doesnt apply to anything in regards to our origin until you start going into subsects of the theory that were made by other people as time went on.


There is just as much chance creationism is correct as evolution, what if evolution is actually wrong?

Will you then read "science and the Quran"?
Two wrongs dont make a right. If something is wrong, that doesnt make it ok to teach more wrong things, because that original thing was wrong.

As far as "science and the Qu'ran", I try to keep up on science, and have taken a small amount of time to read the Qu'ran, although it is translated to english so its not near as accurate as it could be. Like I said before, I think the problem with this nation is people not taking time to see all the other options, it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to say that and not be doing my best to practice what I preach.


I can apply your argument against creationism also to evolution without contradiction, because I have been right all along, they are both theories which lack substantial evidence for you to call them truths and believe that one can be placed above the other in terms of validity.

You cannot contradict this, philosophise all you wish and create theories but you cannot contradict my original statement, I still stand by it and stick to the subject.
The actually theory of evolution is very provable. People never discuss the actual theory though, they always talk about the theory of evolution in regards to origin. And in that respect, yes, both creationism and evolution are on equal grounds. Both are unable to prove much more then the other that that is how everything started.

Even if creationism is true, then it would not discredit evolution, like I said its a good method for survival to evolve around your surroundings, we have formed this method in business as we evolve around consumers and market trends.

That does not mean to say that a centralized force did not create these markets.
Nope, one doesnt exclude the other at all. Thats what I am getting at. Creationism has jack shit to do with evolution.

There is no need to interlink creationism so constantly as you do with religion.

Creationism does not stand apart from the bible and fall without it.

Aliens could have created us.

God could be a particular race of alien.

Allah could be another.

The great spaghetti monster could have come here to earth millions of years ago and engineered us to evolve at this rate.

Are you with me now?
So what are you wanting to be taught? I dont get it... you are saying its not tied to a religion, but how do you plan on teaching it. The most basic form of creationism with all religion removed from it simply says "something created us". Thats not a class, thats not even a decent seminar.

The popular views of creationism are tied directly into religion. In the case of the Louisianna situation, its tied directly into religion especially, since the money is going to a religious group to promote teaching creationism in public schools.


Am I using the wrong word here? Is intelligent design a better word that does not stereotype the Judea Christian biblical indoctrination?

Well, Imitator, I have been saying this all along, but why are people disagreeing with me?
I dont know about other people, I cant easily speak for them. But I can say that you are promoting the teaching of something that is only worthwhile to teach when tied to religion, but saying religion has nothign to do with it.

Creationism is pointless to teach in schools if its in its most basic form. Its a one day discussion if that. The only way there is any substance to discuss is when its a religious verison of creationism. And let us not forget that even the most basic form of creationism still goes against some religions.

You are confusing two seperate theories, and claiming they are the same, and attacking the theory thusly. THe problem is, origin based on evolution is not the same as the theory of evolution. And I think thats where the problem here, at least with what we were talking about, is at.