By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host.
"Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.
Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
"At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God."
Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible.
The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom.
"[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."
For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.
In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.
A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world.
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.
"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye says in his viral video.
Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
"Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years.
The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.
It's funny how those who argue against the processes of evolution, tend to do so by making up "rules" about science to support their argument. But I guess that shouldn't be surprising given that they tend to be arguing in favor of made up stories to begin with.
I'd like to see you 'make up a story" that will last for more than 2,000 years with millions of followers.
...hmmmmmm would I rather receive God's Kingdom or the Animal Kingdom... that's a tough one...
Sorry about my terrible posts. I am a boring, pathetic individual who relies on fairy tale magic to derive self worth. Again, the world would be better off without myself and all the other docile sheep.
donna, you're stupid comments are just hurting the atheist cause – stop posting stupidity.
Hinduism has been around for something like 7000 years... and I would hazard an estimate that more millions (billions?) of people have followed it over the eons than have followed Christianity & Judaism put together.
What an absurd statement. The Iliad and the Odyssey are both older than the New Testament, and they've lasted over 2000 years with millions of followers. I guess that makes them literal truth, too. When you have no facts, you creationists just go for the "nyah nyah we outnumber you so we win" measure of truth.
to all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how you try to justify your position.
A stupid man will easily believe a lie that he himself has not fully investigated but has only heard from another stupid man.
Which god, fvcktard? There have been thousands throughout the course of history. Let me guess, your god is right and all the others are wrong. Seems pretty convenient, even for a fvcktard of your caliber.
a good point – atheists can only resort to demeaning conjectures toward their opponents -not even intelligent discussion.
Right back at ya!
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick.
"despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how you try to justify your position. "
We would agree. In fact, we would say, no matter what you believe or how fervently you believe it, believing doesn't change anything. That's why we rely on evidence that has been tested by time. We don't pretend to know all of the answers. We don't claim to be 100% right. Most of us do not even claim with 100% certainty that there is no god. We understand that the human mind is flawed and unreliable. This is why we rely on repeated experimentation and counter-proofs to try to disprove the things we believe. Absolutes are for religious people. People that like easy, simple answers and are bothered by complex questions gravitate to "god". God is a convenient and lazy answer. We may one day find that there is a god. Until that time to stop at the fringes of what we don't know and just insert god there, lacks intellectual integrity and forti.tude.
To the TheVocalAtheist – are all atheists as stupid as you?????
TheVocalAtheist – are all atheists as stupid as you?????
No most are worse.
Prayer changes things
All children are born atheists and it doesn't harm them one bit.
donna, that is such a stupid thing to say.
All children come from the throne of God and retain within their being a knowledge of their creator. We are given a short time here on earth to choose God in love and so return to God and the amazing eternity He has prepared for us. Only the very foolish do not choose God. God bless
Why, because it's such an obvious fact?
So we all come from some deity's throne and then what? He just randomly picks some of us to be tested? Wouldn't a deity already know of any failings we may or may not have? Why do we have to be born to be tested? Couldn't this test be done at the throne? If there is a killer at the throne, why would your deity inflict him or her on the rest of us as part of the killer's test to see if he or she can be redeemed?
The Bible is the Word of God, and as such it warns of the signs that will signal we are living in the "end times" before Jesus' return. One of those signs happens to be a big "falling away" from the Church. It explains that many people will rebel against God, and even refuse to repent when they realize they were wrong. Reading some of these comments, I sense rebellion and hatred towards God, our Heavenly Father & Creator. This is easy for us to do, as human beings, when we don't want to be accountable, to anyone, for our actions. So I don't expect to convert any of you–I was just recently saved myself... Jesus made miracles happen in my life recently that I can't even begin to explain, and the Holy Spirit is still working in me to bring more positive changes to my life. If just one of you is saved, by God's Grace, in the future then that would be enough to put a smile on my face. The greatest trick the devil DID ever pull was convincing MANY that he did not exist. Because if we believe that he does not exist then it is easier to believe that God does not exist. Don't fool yourselves though, and don't let anyone else do the fooling for you. The Devil is the current ruler of this world until Christ returns. As such he uses every possible means to blind you from the truth. He's drowning and wants as many of you as possible to drown with him so he won't be alone... In my opinion we are living in the Last Days spoken of in the Bible. If you would like some Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, pick yourself up a copy of the Bible if you don't already have one. If you don't like reading, there are many great Pastors to learn from on Youtube like Dr. Charles Stanley, Joseph Prince, and Joyce Meyer to name a few. I expect a few negative responses to this post, but regardless I still pray that God Blesses you all and Jesus saves your souls eventually...
Wait wait wait.... you have all these miracles happening to you and you can't explain one of them? I would think that if a miracle happened to me I'd be able to go into great detail about it. I'm not being negative with this post, I'm just puzzled that you have all this wonderful stuff going on and can't seem to remember any of it.
John, you are just too far gone to even argue with. How could you let yourself be so thoroughly biblewashed? Can't you think for yourself at all? You're fucking hopeless.
I would like to ask a question. Computer programs sometimes have an error called a storage overlay where the program instructions get overlaid with random data, the same thing in concept to a mutation which is basically an overlay of one or more nucleotides in DNA. My question is, how often do you think random storage overlays result in an enhanced computer program that works better than it did before the overlay occurred?
Guess what? We aren't actually equatable to computers. So the question is irrelevant to biological evolution.
Computer simulation is used quite frequently in many different fields. Why would evolution be immune to a computer simulation?
A) Computers are human creations, therefore not a valid comparison.
B) We would need to wait hundreds of millions of years to do a fair test to begin with.
Computational modeling is used a lot on the research of evolution, however that doesn't mean that computers=biological organism. You are grasping at straws here- you can't just decide that computers are the same as something else just because you've heard of computers being used in research.
In my real life I often write programs that employ evolutionary dynamics. Sometimes to simulate evolutionary dynamics, but also to solve problems that are intractable to other means – certain optimization problems, for example.
No, even after all that time, it wouldn't be a fair comparison. They aren't actually the same things no matter how long you wait. Why are you two under the impression that computers function the same way the biological organisms do?
" We would need to wait hundreds of millions of years to do a fair test to begin with."
Correction. Computers run at the speed of light so we could have a very good sample in a very short amount of time. I am quite surprised that no one has ever done this since biology text books are totally void of factual numbers when it comes to the total number of good vs mutations (at least the ones I have seen). The entire theory is based upon mutations yet we have no numbers to work with. I find that odd.
I can tell you that in the 37 years I have been programming, I have never once witnessed a good computer mutation, nor have I had any co-workers tell me they have witnessed such an event nor have I seen any reported in any trade journal – not a one.
@IntelligentDesign, And just how fast are genetic decisions made?
In all of your years of computer programming, how many times have you seen your computer function exactly like a biological organism? Please give examples.
How many computers have been built that accurately simulate the human brain?
How do computer errors/mutations occur compared to gene mutations? Please compare the two a biological level.
" And just how fast are genetic decisions made?"
If you are talking about the life cycle, thats a very long process in time.
Not all life cycles are equal. Some are very short. Time doesn't prevent this test you are imagining. What prevents your test from happening is that we don't have computers that are equal to biological organisms in function. We do have biological organisms you can observe, if you are interested in real evidence.
@IntelligentDesign, The point that everyone is making here is that, while you may know a lot about computers, you clearly know nothing about biology or gene replication. How can you possibly expect to understand what you're comparing if you don't understand what you're comparing?
It's the concept that I am questioning. The concept as advertised by evolution is: A random, non intelligent change made to DNA will create a new beneficial trait that had not existed before. Why should evolution be the only benefactor of that? Certainly, a computer program should also benefit since a computer program is made up of machine instructions (nucleotides representing amino acids) which form a program (a protein) that performs a specific function. You can't get any closer than that. If it happens in evolution it should also happen in a computer.
@IntelligentDesign, Do you at least believe in human directed evolution of species? For example, the domestication of honey bees over time by way of selective breeding... or the altering of dogs to create new "brands" of dog by enhancing legs or shrinking them... The de-seeding of gra.pes....
If so, your argument then is, you believe that man can direct natural selection, but you don't think nature can do it?
You are wrong about the concept advertised by evolution. The only concept "advertised" by evolution is that: IN A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM...mutations can result in positive adaptations. Evolution makes no claims about computers or any other non biological thing.
So if you want to continue, you have to change that basis of your argument, because it's a lie.
What the computer does, will not tell you what biology does. Just because you think the concepts are the same, doesn't mean that they are. You can't just pick two things that you think have some similarities and decide one if evidence of the other.
Computers aren't biological organisms, so why should they operate the same in "concept"?
I asked you to compare the process of mutation in computers and biological organisms- do it from the position of biology. How does a biological mutation occur (and there are many types). Get technical. Use real processes, not your imagination. What you just said isn't nearly in depth enough to support the claim you are making.
"if it happens in evolution, it should happen in a computer."
WHY? Because you want it to?
They aren't the same things. There is no logical reason for that assumption.
Isn’t selective breeding just making use of traits that are already present in the genes? In other words, no mutations are required for selective breeding to work – correct? Or are we talking about genes that are modified by humans to achieve the results you are talking about?
I believe that a true scientist would want to have these numbers. And yes I know that there are different forms of mutations, but we should be able to simulate them. Right now, we have no numbers to work with and thats not right. I am not being critical of science. Science has done wonderful things for humanity. But so has God.
I guess the simplest point to make here is that even today bacteria mutate:
On a side note, Donna is right to point out though that computers are not living creatures and do not have a basic tendency toward survival that life forms have. If you've read and give any credence to Kurzweil, then this may change in the next 20 years. It's possible and probable that we will see self-replicating machines and at some point, self-improving programs.
It's not an issue of survival. It's an issue of them being physically, completely different things.
A mutation in a computer is not the same thing as a mutation in DNA. They don't occur for the same reasons, or by the same processes- the only similarity is that WE are using the same term.
What is the physical (elemental) make up of a computer and what is the psychical make up of a biological organism?
Anyone please answer that.
Are they made up of the same elements in the same combinations?
Intelligent Design, RE: "WE should be able to simulate them."
I already told you to look at computational modeling, and you ignored it, btw. There are programs to simulate rate of change, that's different from expecting the computer simulate a a biological organism without being programmed to.
Donna, with your approach we could never use a computer to simulate anything because a computer will never have the same exact physical makeup of whatever is being simulated.
@donna, I think what @IntelligentDesign is pointing to is that genes have at their rudimentary level the same basic programming structure as computers. That is, on or off. However these computers programs do not have a "replicate" directive. It's still a weak argument and the equivalent of asking "if complex watches can self-assemble, why aren't we finding these watches everywhere?"
I don't think it's farfetched that a filesystem or something that sits right on top of a file system could introduce and exploit errors using a few rules from evolutionary dynamics and generate populations of useful data including instructions for improving the whole setup. I don't work that close to the metal, but programs written in high-level programming languages to do that sort of thing work fine.
Godfreenow: "@donna, I think what @IntelligentDesign is pointing to is that genes have at their rudimentary level the same basic programming structure as computers."
And that's a false assumption.
Intelligent Design: with all due respect, I have to question how well you really understand computers.
Computational modeling (which you repeatedly ignore), uses computer programs to simulate the rate of change. A computer simulation includes programming the computer with the rate of change, the variables of the environment and the algorithm of natural selection.
Your claim is that a computer simulates a biological organism on it's own because of it's physical structure.
Those are two very very different things.
Tom, Tom, that makes sense. But even so it doesn't tell us about the facts of biological processes, it just provides another way of understanding the concept of beneficial mutations. If that did not happen, it would not tell us anything about the validity of biological evolutionary processes, including beneficial mutations.
@donna... "And that's a false assumption."
I'm happy to be corrected. Care to explain?
**Correction about my computer simulation description- you program the rate of mutation (which we can measure in biology) and the rest, and you get the rate of adaptive change.
I've explained it many times. They are physically different things, physically different processes, physically different causes and physically different results.
Just because we use the same terminology doesn't mean that they are made up if the same elemental combinations. There's no short cut if you want to prove otherwise; AGAIN, what is the elemental construct of DNA and of the computer parts? If they aren't identical, then identical processes aren't involved.
What you are doing is taking a useful metaphor and acting as if it's something different.
@donna, have you read either of Dawkins' books, The Extended Phenotype or The Selfish Gene?
Yep! I'm a big fan of Dawkins. And he uses analogies to make things understandable. He also talks about memes as if they operate on the same principle of biology because it's a useful heuristic tool. But he would never say that processes in one category tell us facts about actual physical processes in another.
The vast vast vast majority of mutations DON'T work better than before. They're called cancer.
I guess what bugs me the most about this is bill nyes hypocracy. He is a proclaimed skeptic in the world of science walking around providing alternative explanations for everything, and encouraging us to not automaticly accept anything we are told as the truth. So why when he talks about evolution, says we should just accept it and not question it at all. I thought part of sceince was always retesting theories anyway, Oh well, just a thought.
Wow- that's a flat out lie. He's never told anyone not to question anything. He's asking you to evaluate the evidence, not to just take his word about the issue.
Take a biology class, or a geology class. Read a book. You can evaluate the evidence yourself. The great part of science is nothing is taken as absolute, if someone does the work honestly they could prove evolution wrong but to this point all science confirms evolution, among the vast majority of scientists it is not even contraversial.
Now lets look at creation...where is the evidence? Creationists can't agree on even the basic premise, other than "god did it". I have just as much evidence that "magic pixies did it".
Bill is simply saying that creation "science" is religion, not science. Does a religion have to allow science to be taught as an "alternative" to its teachings?
Isn't a PhD at the Creation Museum like having a PhD in toilet cleaning? I mean how valuable and pertinent can that be?
Well with toilet cleaning you get a clean toilet, at least thats something..
Yes, you can find Jesus in every book of the Bible because He is what it is all about.
Wow. Some people actually BELIEVE that God created the universe, and all things in it, less than 10,000 yrs ago. Wow. Bizzare-o. Live that out in your homes, if you like, but man, don't being it out in public, esp. not into government and education realms. It's a religious faith matter. Keep belief in that story in your churches.
Wow. Some people actually BELIEVE that God created the universe, and all things in it, less than 10,000 yrs ago. Wow. Bizzare-o.
Prayer changes things .
I'm sorry "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but you assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. I see that you repeat these unfounded statements frequently. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to... by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
Yep, meditation most definitely has an impact on the body.
Prove it. I've never seen a change caused by prayer, and neither have you.
Darwin was a 'johnny come lately' when it came to 'calling' and made a great leap of unfaith when he declared there is no God. Adam didn't fall for that, heh, heh.......'Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.'......Darwin led to the the legitimatizing of racism and was a major contributor to the holocaust of the people that have the star of Moloch on their flag.
Darwin contributed to the Holocaust like Rutherford contributed to Hiroshima. You can't blame scientists for the practical application of their discoveries when they have no involvement in the application.
You seem lost little boy, do you need help finding your mommy?
chuck, you could at least call the spelling police on me. Remember what you learned at your sunday morning soccer practices? You were always screaming for a ref.
So you want me to call the police or the refs first? You have a very disjointed mind here. Lets do a simple exercise, hows about we start out with just one thing and focus on that, shall we?
My goodness, mud. You better check and see if someone if putting something funny in your coffee. Or maybe you hit your head recently. Something's not right.
ratlib, whose bright idea was it to put asian carp in the catfish ponds? Now they're experimenting on the food supply for the one human race. They have no idea where that's gonna lead. Maybe it's their version of birth control. But DR. Frankenstein would approve!
BTW ratlib, God is the original and faithful libertarian.......'2Cr 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.'
Have mud..except that in fact only one cell likely came out of the primordial soup..all other creatures evolved from it. So actually god got it wrong...god also failed to tell humanity about any thing else that was not known at the time..lots of talk about the Americas, Antarctica, Greenland, the Arctic? ...none of this was mentioned because none of it was known...Penguins, Walrus ?
EDNA, it must have been on a 'need to know basis' heh, heh
Darwin could have been Hitler's best friend and it wouldn't change a thing about the reality of evolutionary processes.
Oh for...wow. By that logic, Adam and Eve were completely responsible for the Holocaust.
it irks me when christians try to threaten athiests, or who ever doesn't agree with them, with eternal damnation. The fact is, no where in the bible does it mention hell. The hebrew word "sheol", which is usually translated as "hell", means " the grave". dont believe me? read about it more on this website, http://www.thehypertexts.com/No%20Hell%20in%20the%20Bible.htm
Not only have most fire-and-brimstone Christians not read the Bible in any of its original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic), they haven't even read it in English all the way through. If they had, they'd know angels weren't nice people with tings, Lucifer didn't reign in Hell, Noah did not take only two of each animal on the Ark, and God has no opinion on abortion.
Education is supposed to be about learning; instead, it has become all about teaching. Teachers lecture to a class on topics which are mostly irrelevant, uninteresting, and according to a schedule not matching the abilities of the students. The result is that many students learn to ignore what the teacher is saying. In an experiment in Minnesota school's, for example, it was found that while almost every first grader and second grader could recall what the teacher was talking about when she suddenly called "time out," in junior high the ratio had dropped to less than one in two and in high school a little more than one in four.
If the needs, interests, and abilities of students are ignored, is it any wonder that so may people believe in Creationism, boast about their inability in mathematics, and avoid reading anything beyond romances and skin novels?
What needs, specifically, are you talking about? How is the teacher to determine the nature of these needs? How will the teacher meet the diverse needs of 300-400 students per week at the high school level, given the requirements of a state-mandated curriculum and high-stakes testing?
Excellent questions, and I am not blaming the teachers, some of whom are outstanding. The problem is the system. The usual route of blame is to blame the student for not paying attention or laziness, the parents for not providing adequate preparation, or even the grandparents for passing on the wrong genes. All this blame is misdirected, none of it will do a whit to solve the problem. As to needs, how many students actually need to learn the structure of Shakespearean sonnets or how to solve algebraic equations with imaginary roots?
The goal of education should be to develop the individual and prepare them for a participant in a democratic society not a filtering system for separating out an elite and tsk-tsk for the rest.
I disagree. There is value in being able to understand the arts and literature for their own sake, whether or not that understanding is directly connected to a vocation. Critical thinking skills develop through a variety of experiences.
Arvo, considering how rapidly change is occurring, how would the system "prepare students for participation in a democratic society" that we cannot even foresee? And what would you do, specifically, to accomplish this goal? Teach only basic skills? I hear these arguments all the time, but rarely does anyone who makes them have concrete steps for making school more relevant and meaningful.
Obviously, you misunderstand the importance of imaginary numbers in science and engineering.
It is useful to learn basics of all subjects in school. I never felt that I should not have learnt physics or history even though I chose medical sciences as vocation. Exposure to a variety of subjects does help u become more informed, more aware of ur surroundings, it changes ur world view.
If u donot teach them basic mathematics, basic science, basic literature, and so on.... How else can an individual make an informed decision about what they want to pursue as a vocation in life? Exposure to all fields I think is important for overall growth and to be able to finally make the choices in ur life.
Imaginary numbers play a useful but not very broad role in science and engineering; I doubt that most scientists or engineers will ever make practical use of them.
The cultural argument fails in that most students will simply learn to loathe reading, writing, especially poetry. How does it benefit the average student to read Shakespeare in a language that requires, on occasion, more explanatory footnotes than text on a page. Oh yes, you provide them with a paraphrase in language that is about as insipid and unliterate as is possible. And yes, teach them more practical things; How to play a guitar rather than musical theory, drama classes rather than reading plays, books that are of interest to them yet relevant to their development.
Schooling isn't everything. I remember an aged neighbor who expressed amazement that I had graduated from high school without having read Anna Karenina, a book he said he had read before finishing elementary school. (He neglected to add that he had never finished elementary school.)
Arvo, learning to play guitar IS learning musical theory, unless all you do is parrot what you see or hear what another guitarist does. What you seem to be advocating is a sort of vocational education, in which students learn skills, but don't bother with any deeper understanding of the subject.
As for Shakespeare, I hate to break it to you, but there are kids who learn to understand Shakespeare's plays and love them. In one of our local elementary schools, 6th grade students read a Shakespeare play, and keeping the original language and plot, perform a shortened version of it, staged with costumes and scenery.
@Tom, Tom: My point is that education should be more tailored to the individual student. I am not at all opposed to theory being taught in depth to some (for whom the educational system is already adequate) but for students who have more practical (hands-on) needs and interests, the system misses. Yes, I know that to play a musical instrument students learn music theory but they should also have an opportunity to play the instrument. Same in sports, instead of getting an opportunity to humiliate themselves by demonstrating their incompetence, then watching the jocks perform, every student should have an opportunity to develop their own skills. You can argue with me but you can't dismiss the dismal results that the education system delivers.
I have to leave the discussion at this point but thank you, I enjoyed it.
And again, Arvo, I hear about how schools should "tailor" their programs for individual students all the time. And again, there are rarely any specifics, or if there are, they involve things schools are already doing. How will you tailor classes to individual students? What will be the practical adjustments to the way schools work now? More teachers? Smaller classes? Longer school days? More hom ogenous grouping of students by ability? Fewer?
What I do agree with is the need for more vocational education opportunities for students who are not interested in entering college of for whom a career in a trade is appealing. Unfortunately, most systems are more interested in showing that "all students" are prepared for college, and failing because such a goal is unrealistic.
Did Jesus need evolution when he brought Lazarus out of the grave?
Do you have any proof he did? Bibles don't count.
TT, you're coming across as a book burner.........MUD
And you're coming across as a moron.
HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL,
- Did "Allah" need evolution when he spoke to Mohammad in the cave?
- Did Joseph Smith's hat and seer stones need evolution for their messages?
What evidence do you have that your Bible stories are true?
There is no shortage of prophet slayers....'Rev 19:10.......for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.'
Mud..you are trying to combine your jesus myths with evolutionary fact...
I'm sick of atheists saying "science" this and "science" that. What is science but another religion. It holds no higher ground on truth.
Science is responsible for the computer that you are using to bash science. What exactly has religion contributed?
Religion has saved countless souls over the course of 2000 years. I think that is more than all the contributions of science put together.
Actually, science does take the higher ground on truth. It seeks truth. Religion just proclaims it.
Saved countless souls? Sorry kid, it doesn't really take all that long to count to zero.
Evangelical that is a claim you have no basis or proof for. Religion has contributed nothing in our understanding of the world.
All religions say they seek truth ... including science.
Evan, why do you tell us how much science you have studied? High school level biology? Chemistry? College level? Have you done post-graduate studies? In anything?
What good is understanding the world if you are going to burn in hell for eternity?
Evan, how do you know what science does, says, or is? How much of it have you ever studied? I'll bet every poster who's responded to your question here has studied more about religion than you have about science.
Edit: "do" should be "don't".
Science, philosophy and religion all begin in wonder; but, scientists, philosophers and religious seekers-after-truth wonder about different things and use different criteria for what they consider true. Scientists wonder how things are interconnected and how they work, and use the scientific method to arrive conclusions they consider valid. Philosophers wonder why things are as they are and use the law of consistency to arrive at conclusions that can be considered valid. Unlike science or philosophy, religion seems to lack unifying criteria that would enable believers to resolve their disputes, much less their disputes with scientists and philosophers.
"Unlike science or philosophy, religion seems to lack unifying criteria that would enable believers to resolve their disputes, much less their disputes with scientists and philosophers."
So what? That doesn't make science any more true of a religion. God's kingdom is not a democracy.
Sure, Evan. That explains why there are hundreds of denominations in the Christian church, and just as many interpretations of Scripture.
Oh wow your threats of violence by your god for not believing what your believe. The god you believe in is morally bankrupt.
By what morality do you dare judge God? Human morality? The same morality that says it's ok to kill babies and that ho.mos.exuals should have rights?
God had babies and children "dashed against the rocks". God recommends stoning for "unruly children". Yes I use my morality to judge your god. He is an immoral monster and would not deserve worship even if he did exist.
Oh, stuff it. Nobody is "killing babies" and there is no reason gays shouldn't have rights. You are using your myth to remove the legal rights of people you don't like.
God exists outside of morality. He creates morality for humans. But God himself cannot be immoral.
Why don't we get back to creationism/evolution? Evan, when are you going to give your qualifications for making a determination as to the validity of evolution theory?
Evanidiot, it is pointless to discuss the nature of god until you prove there are any gods. Otherwise you are just arguing over the rules to the largest fantasy role playing game. Most (70+%) of abortions in the USA are had by believers – when are believers going to follow their own cult's rules? What rights would you deny hom.o.se.xuals and why?
I don't think the mentally ill should have any voting rights, and also believe that belief in unproven supernatural ent!ties and unproven myths are clears signs of mental illness. Please seek the help of a mental health professional to begin your deprogramming.
Have a nice Mtyth Day!
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth , there is none that seeketh after God .
Well, that's a great excuse, Mud.
So if your god told a parent to kill their child that action would not only be moral but immoral not to kill them? That is not morality. Might does not make right.
It is clear you do not understand the scientific method. Unlike religion, science does not claim to have all the answers. For a theory like evolution to become scientific theory is has been proven to such a degree that it is the accepted explanation, but it is still open to review and modification. Science is not in anyway a religion.
So, Evangelical, here's your problem. You would found your every argument in the bible, and the source for the bible's authority is... the bible itself. This is called a circular argument and it is a logical fallacy. Then when people question your god's morality, you say that some actions - when taken by humans - would be monstrous, but those same actions - committed by a supposedly loving and merciful god - are fine, because your "god exists outside of morality". Further, we have all heard the faithful proclaim that it's best to ignore overwhelming evidence in the fields of astronomy, biology, cosmology, climatology and more - in favor of "the god did it" position that contributes less than nothing to understanding. And you wonder that you're getting pushback? Please demonstrate some *tangible* positive thing that religion has recently contributed.
Are you really under the impression that "religion" and "science" are synonyms? They have very different meanings. Use the dictionary.
Evan..Science is simply the way we understand our world..it is not a religion.. religion starts from the premise it has all the answers, whereas science does not.
I do not understand why Atheism in America has become so obsessed with Christians it fails to recognize that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and many other faiths also believe in an invisible being, and fails to recognize that by focusing on the Jesus freaks it is adopting their tactics and turning into an aggressive and hyperemotional crusading movement itself.
"Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew"
Uh, no. Atheists in America full well recognize that faiths others than Christianity believe in an "invisible being". However, at the present Christianity as the fullest sway over public discourse and in many cases demands that it's viewpoint prevail in issues that impact all Americans. That's a big reason why contemporary American atheists put so much effort into challenging Christianity on many fronts.
Christianity is for more aggressive in its conversion tactics. Chistians want to tell everyone what they believe and that others will suffer if they don't convert to their religion. Then when others stand up to voice their opposition they cry "persecution" and "hate". Your complaints are laughable.
Maybe you should check out the numbers of how many Americans are Christian, Jewish and Muslim- and anything else you can think of, then ask yourself that question again.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.