A News Cut reader forwards this video of an ABC News segment about a group that takes schoolchildren on a tour of a natural history museum to reinforce its teachings on creationism. Interesting enough, although I admit the part I found the most interesting is when the tour guides ask the kids to fill in the blanks of their questions. "And that's called.... ....... ........ right, circular reasoning." Also note the part where they ask the kids the question, the kids start shaking their heads in the affirmative and say "no."
There was a fascinating article in the NYT Magazine a couple months ago about the growing number of creationist scientists in the fields of anthropology, geology & palentology who are trying to prove the young earth (i.e. creationism) theory with science. One major problem they're facing is radio carbon dating - but they're working on it...
I wish I had heard a few more answers to those "how do we know" questions before college. I remember hearing about how old dinosaurs were, that the core of the earth is made of iron, that certain galaxies were so many light years away... and I never really thought to ask how we knew those things. I think asking "how do we know" would help kids gain insight into the scientific process much more than knowing the sun is 93 million miles away or the speed of light is 3*10^8 m/s.
I also don't see why God couldn't have just created the earth to look like it was 4+ billion years old. Why create a bunch of kids that don't trust science when you can just say "God made it that way. It's a test of our faith."
i wasn't going to post but here goes:
Last week my Catholic School Son asked me if God was white.
I told him that I thought that it all depended on his idea of God. I told him that he could see God a white anything if he wanted. Then of course he asked me how I see God. Trying to be careful of how I phrase things to him as to not discredit what he is learning in school in religion, I told him that I imagine God like an energy of unconditional love and light. So this leads to the question, ok so what does that look like?
So I told him that I thought of God like how it says in, I think it is Genesis, in the Bible "God created man in his own image". Only I understand it to mean that we are consumed IN his image. We are not reflections of God's physidal appearance but we are created into a Universe that IS God. I told him the atmosphere is God, the trees, the grass, everying around us and also that God is within us. I said that we think linearly so it is difficult for us to understand the full content and meaning. (This has to do with the God is was and always will be clause).
My fifth grader just smiled and said, "Ok then, I'll think of God as an Orb"
phew. I think I would rather explain where babies come from
So what does my response have to do with Bob's post?....God can be Science. God is Science and we are the Co creators.
This indoctrination of our youth is terrifying. How can you expect these children to function in a normal society, to prosper in their lives when they are victims of these irrational brainwashers? They are taught to be unquestioning of their surroundings, which will only serve as a hinderance in their adult lives. How cult-like.
i don't quite follow in what you are saying. the guys on the vid -i thought-were telling the kids that there are different ways to look at science and the origin of the earth, which is where they were knodding their heads while saying no. I thought that they were trying to show that the idea behind God /earth/science was that it is up to the perceiver. we have a choice to believe what we want to believe. one guy was brought up Bible and is now science-straight science while the other guy is a mix of creation and science.
Science doesn't change based on the perceiver. It is a system of observation and experimentation used to describe and explain natural phenomena.
We can believe and perceive what we want, but that doesn't change the natural laws of the universe.
I had exactly the same viceral reaction as kate did.
Unfortunately, I think a young earth creationist would say exactly the same thing about a public school geology class.
I think both sides need to be more open minded. Creationists should accept that there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is old. Evolutionists should accept that God could have created it that way 6,000 years ago.
Evolutionists deals in science, which is restricted to testing and describing natural phenomena.
Since God is described as supernatural, he is not contained within the natural restrictions of science. He can not be proven or disproved by science.
Science has nothing to do with creationism, and creationism has nothing to do with science.
Creationists don't have to accept evolution. But they do need to understand that creationism is not science.
"Evolutionists should accept that God could have created it that way 6,000 years ago."
That science is now rolled up into one made-up word encapsulates the lunacy of this debate in a clean and concise fashion.
To put it differently, if I, as someone you would term an 'evolutionist' should accept that the earth was created this way 6000 years ago, then you, likewise should accept that every creation myth from every people on earth is comparably plausible. Are you prepared to do that?
ohhhhh you guys are hung up on the fact my son asked if "God is white." I don't think that the "God is white" is any INDOCTRINATION (what a fancy word, as well as "viceral)" being taught in his school. It WAS just HIS impression. but now he thinks of God as an orb. I like that idea. Look up "orb" on the internet merriam dictionary, I was pretty impressed with his quick response.
what i want to know is whether you folks really use "indoctrination" and "visceral" in daily speech. you must be buckets of fun.
"He can not be proven or disproved by science" aric.
Who do you think is running the projector for this whole wierd movie called life in the Universe. That's proof. what makes or made the world go? something has to right. thats proof.
And a false dichotomy.
isn't conjecture a process in science?
Yes, I think pretty much every creation myth is plausable.
Do I believe in them? No.
Do I believe in the Christian one? No.
I just think someone could believe that a God made the earth 6,000 years ago, as long as that person accepts that that God made it so it looks 4+billion years old in every way we can measure.
Even though religion isn't science and science isn't religion, I don't see why they can't be compatible.
(I use both indoctrination and visceral in my daily speech. I'll give you visceral (which it appears I can't spell)... but I think indoctrination is pretty common.)
that's the whole point of life on the right side of the brain. feeling it.
you guys are a bigger annunaki nightmare than i first thought.
(how do you like them apples michael?)
If you have an argument that's sustainable, you don't need to attack the other person.
Like I've said before, there are plenty of places to go to get that stuff.
merriam webster says conjecture is "inference from defective or presumptive evidence".
So when 'c' says that something must make the world go, therefore God exists, I call that an inference from defective and presumptive evidence.
If people have faith that God exists, that is a matter between them & their God. But it should not be confused with science.
I wasn't talking about religion. I am merely talking about science and science involves energy and I believe God is energy or a force like the force that I described long ago up this blog. God is Science
bsimon this is what I meant": a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c: a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved" a process in science
oh and Bob
many times others make comments that are pretty derrogatory more so than anything I have said, why do you always make an issue of mine? Such as your buddy Gregs and your buddy Daveg?
c, in posting the alt definition of conjecture, you seem to agree with my original statement: it is not proof.
can you prove love?
and according to my definition of God-unconditional love and light-you can prove God. Love is emotion and emotion is energy and energy is science so God is Science.
There you go.
In order for a conjecture to be a part of a scientific process the truth of the conjecture(hypothesis) has to be able to be tested. I don't think the existence of God can be tested for either way. It has to be a question of faith. That makes God not a part of science. I think there are things that can be debated whether they are included in science or not, but I don't think God is one of them.
In order for a statement to be a conjecture in Math is also has to be able to be proven or disproven (and it isn't trusted until it is).
Energy is measured by and discussed by scientists. That doesn't make energy equal to science.
and what about the debate on sending healing through prayer and meditation?
God is Science....maybe not your science.
The study done by the John Tempelton Foundation suggests that prayer does not heal.
oh yah...the old john tempelton foundation scientific study that suggested prayer doesn't heal.
you made that up right? who ran that one?
that means nothing to me. i know of plenty of studies that prove differently.
i am outta here.
As long as we're on the subject of things that can't be proven, can someone explain to how time started? Did someone hit a clock or something that said "go!" Why does time apply to everything, but not equally?
What we don't know about our existence is far, far more than what we do. So I'm guessing nobody's gonna be proving anything in a blog.
I know that time was measured by the Mayans by using astrology -ie Mayan Calendar
We're not going to prove anything, but it sure is nice to talk to people.
In regards to time, Hawkings says time emerged from space gradually and was not created in a singular first moment.
My understanding of time is that it is intimately connected to space. If the big-bang theory is correct, then time started at that point (when space did). There simply wasn’t “time” before then because time and space are the same thing. Our brains can’t really comprehend this (I sure can’t anyway).
I’m not sure if it has been explained why we perceive time as only moving in one direction. We can move back and forth in space, but time seems to plod on.
I do know that time effects things differently that are going different speeds. This has to do with the fact that experiments always measure the speed of light as being the same. It is amazing all of the weird things that must be true just because the speed of light is always the same.
On those occasions when I sit on my infamous "bench" (See my personal blog) and think of these weighty issues of divinity and science, I always come back to time. Why does it exist? Why do we age? How can something not exist and then exist?
Eventually it gets dark and I have to go inside.
One well-placed lightning bolt would clear a lot of this up.
the One running the projecter.
and by the way
I am not religious although I am Catholic
and I am not a Bible thumper.
If you want a clearer picture Bob, use the right side of your brain.
Now I am really otta here
Getting back to the original newcut blog... I think its fine that these kids get this "creationism" education. They're in Christian home schools; obviously this isn't the first time they're hearing these "ideas." Its great to have a diversity of thought. It gives us atheists something to rant about. However, when these "philosophical ideas" enter the public school system is when I have a problem with it. Whatever others decide to teach in their homes and within their private tours is fine, even if it is backwards, just don't mess with the general public. Oh and to back log... science and religion are not the same no matter how many arbitrary "proofs" one can come up with.
Why are fundamentalist Christians singled out for mocking in the press?
Why not mock all those Somalian immigrants who come to our land with thier outlandish beliefs and customs?
Or how about those weird Liberal/Progressives who believe that Wellstone was killed by the CIA, or that Bush blew up the World Trade Towers?
If we are going to pick a minority to beat up, let's spread it around and mock every minority who believes something that the majority do not.
You've been around here long enough, Greg, to know that the Wellstone conspiracy theorists -- in particular the guy up in Duluth -- has been a favorite target of mine for years.
"Mocking in the press." Example, please?
Are you suggesting that the ABC was "mocking"
BTW it's been years since I've seen a poll, but the last one I saw -- Gallup -- said the majority of those surveyed believed in creationism
Compost this thought for your sustainable commentary Bob:
We all have the freedom to think and believe what we wish. I believe that God is All. So for me that would encompass......everything. So inorder for the God in me to see the God in Aric, Kate, Brian, Greg and Bob and Emily and oh lets not forget BSimon I accept them for what they believe.
This way we can all have a happy lunch at the same table.
Religion requires faith, science requires proof.
If you are looking for religion to explain science, or for science to explain religion, prepare to look for a while.
My advice is to build a bench and wait for a lightning bolt. ;)
'c' you sure have a funny way of "accepting" people for what they believe; you are the only participant who personally attacked people.
I challenge all of you out there who do not believe in creationism to prove what you believe by science. Where did you get your information on evolution? Do you know that there is absolutely no proof that any animal ever evolved? Do you know that the only way to prove fine tunning of the universe is that it was created?
Do you know that the only way to to prove the fine tunning of man is that he was created?
Can you make a living cell without another living cell?
Can you make something from nothing?
How can you prove that there was not an earth or a universe before man was made?
Come on people you have offered no proof that the world and man was not designed.
If anyone is blindly following someone it is a scientific mind that refuses to ask for proof, but just accepts a theory with no proof.