Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Evolution cant be taught in Public School? Posted: 26-Jul-2012 at 18:44 |
Originally posted by Fula
Humanity has always ..... . . . . as these new religions have incopoprated evolution theory into their theology. . . . . References:
1. Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky, Lyle Stuart, (1990).
2. Neville Drury, The New Age: Searching for the Spiritual Self, pg. 10. London, England, UK: Thames and Hudson (2004)
|
I think these mystical so-called religions, namely Scientology or New Ageism, favor " theosophy" (in its modern sense) rather than " theology". Mystics, if I am not mistaken, have always emphasized throughout the history that "Truth" (or "God") cannot be understood thru "logic", but by means of "cognition" and "perception".
|
Quaere Verum
|
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2012 at 18:53 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
Perhaps the "seven days" it took God to create the earth were actually billions of years as time must pass slowly for an immortal being? |
Or maybe those notorious "seven days" of genesis convey an esoteric symbol of "embryogenesis": the days it takes for a human embryo to be created! And as the "world" for each one of us has a unique appearance, then for each of us the world is created in six days and then the Creator rests in the seventh day-as the embryo finds a break to have some rest after the fertilization!
|
Quaere Verum
|
|
hzcummi
Immortal Guard
Joined: 25-Jul-2012
Location: GA USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2012 at 19:19 |
You all are way off base. The seven 12-hr days in Genesis are not a creation account. I call them the "Observations of Moses". Creation Week was 168 hrs, 4.6 billion years ago. What God was showing Moses was one day of the week, from seven different time periods, and it was in Divine order, not chronological order. There is a 65 minute PowerPoint presentation, that the Sanhedrin in Israel saw, that "blew them away". They didn't think that literal interpretation of Genesis could be reconciled with science, but it has. But they didn't want to admit that the commentaries in the Torah and Talmud were wrong. It's just that the Clergy, news media, and academia have been hiding it from the people for over 18 years. Google "Herman Cummings Genesis".
Herman Cummings
|
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
|
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2012 at 19:42 |
I googled it and I got your article titled as "The Fall of the Evolution Theory". I skimmed it, and at the occasion I will peruse it. It again reminded me of the notorious "Edwards vs Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 482 U.S. 578" case. I think this case is a violation of the freedom of speech! Creationism Science-or whatever, no matter how much it would sound crazy to some, should be taught at least as a hypothesis that humans used, and still use, to believe throughout the history. Because the evolution itself is still a "theory" and not a certain principle which is to refute Creationism wholly.
P.S. You mention Titanic movie in your article. I have heard that its captain had stated, in an interview with a journal just before starting the voyage, that this ship, Titanic, is as cool as even God cannot sink it! Is it true or it is just a rumor?!
|
Quaere Verum
|
|
Fula
Pretorian
Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2012 at 09:22 |
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising
Originally posted by Fula
So nobody is going to address the topic of how evolution advances Scientology and New age religion... which violates the establishment clause? | I wasn't aware that Scientology and New age religion were mainstream within the education system, Fula. |
Why does it matter if they are mainstream? My theory is that evolution theory now advances these religions just like how creation theory advances Abrahamic religions. According to the establishment clause they both shouldnt be taught.
Unless you hold to your original position that these new religions simply hijacked evolution and therefore it doesnt count.
Edited by Fula - 27-Jul-2012 at 09:23
|
|
TheAlaniDragonRising
AE Moderator
Spam Fighter
Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2012 at 10:37 |
Originally posted by Fula
Why does it matter if they are mainstream? My theory is that evolution theory now advances these religions just like how creation theory advances Abrahamic religions. According to the establishment clause they both shouldnt be taught.
Unless you hold to your original position that these new religions simply hijacked evolution and therefore it doesnt count. |
Mainstream would suggest in general circulation, and so normal practice. Though that might be more significant in those places with a national curriculum, it would still be seen as acceptance of sorts. In your opinion, Fula, has evolutionism significantly changed its modus operandi since the creation of either Scientology or those New age religions you have talked about? As for hijacking evolution, I think that could be pushing things a little bit. Borrowing the odd idea here and there is probably as far as it can be pushed.
|
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
|
|
Fula
Pretorian
Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 07:24 |
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising
Originally posted by Fula
Why does it matter if they are mainstream? My theory is that evolution theory now advances these religions just like how creation theory advances Abrahamic religions. According to the establishment clause they both shouldnt be taught.
Unless you hold to your original position that these new religions simply hijacked evolution and therefore it doesnt count. | Mainstream would suggest in general circulation, and so normal practice. Though that might be more significant in those places with a national curriculum, it would still be seen as acceptance of sorts.
In your opinion, Fula, has evolutionism significantly changed its modus operandi since the creation of either Scientology or those New age religions you have talked about?
As for hijacking evolution, I think that could be pushing things a little bit. Borrowing the odd idea here and there is probably as far as it can be pushed. |
I definitely think its become a lot more dogmatic in its approach as if no other theory (intervention or creation theory) can be scientific. Especially with the incorporation of Haeckel's fake embryo drawings in biology textbooks.
Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionary biologist) is qouted as saying:
"We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"
Haeckel's fake embryo drawings compared to real embryos:
Textbook II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002), pg. 1229:
I think the advancement of these lies in public schools definitely gives validity to scientology specifically
Edited by Fula - 30-Jul-2012 at 07:26
|
|
KongMing
Knight
Joined: 09-May-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 58
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 13:43 |
Why are all these delicious shrimp turning into babies?
|
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 14:21 |
Originally posted by Fula
Haeckel's fake embryo drawings compared to real embryos:
Textbook II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002), pg. 1229:
I think the advancement of these lies in public schools definitely gives validity to scientology specifically
|
Very interesting information. I had no idea that even in the year 2002 a scientific book could contain evidently unscientific contents. Probably, if assuming this to be deliberately done, they are really too much obsessed with fighting against opponents of evolutionary biology! I read somewhere that Darwin himself has not used the term "evolution" even for one single time in his notorious work "On the Origin of the Species". Apparently secret Gnostic circles, which are most likely predecessors of modern popular groups such as Church of Scientology, found Darwin's indication in accordance with their almost ancient tenet: evolution of consciousness (which also requires biological evolution to some degrees too). I always recall a poem of Molavi (famous Iranian mystic and sufi) in this respect: Az Jamaadi Mordamo Naami Shodam / Vaz Namaa Mordam Beh Heyvaan Sar Zadam Mordam Az Heyvaanio Aadam Shodam / Bas Cheh Tarsam, Key Zeh Mordan Kam Shodam? It says (I try my best in translating it, but I am afraid fidelity to the original text could still elude my translation): [I was a solid lifeless matter and then] I died in solidness and became a [lively] plant / Then I died as a plant and became an animal As an animal I passed away and became a human / So why should I be scared [of death and of the repetitive dying and being born cases in the nature, because] have I lost any [of my previous accomplishments, if not gained more gifts] in death? There, as far as I can personally read from the context, Molavi directly indicates the evolution of consciousness in nature and exquisitely leaves the last (?) step-after dying as a human (maybe then humans are, as Gnostics hold, to retrieve Divinity?)
|
Quaere Verum
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 14:44 |
Originally posted by Phosphorus
I googled it and I got your article titled as "The Fall of the Evolution Theory". I skimmed it, and at the occasion I will peruse it. It again reminded me of the notorious "Edwards vs Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 482 U.S. 578" case. I think this case is a violation of the freedom of speech! Creationism Science-or whatever, no matter how much it would sound crazy to some, should be taught at least as a hypothesis that humans used, and still use, to believe throughout the history. Because the evolution itself is still a "theory" and not a certain principle which is to refute Creationism wholly.
P.S. You mention Titanic movie in your article. I have heard that its captain had stated, in an interview with a journal just before starting the voyage, that this ship, Titanic, is as cool as even God cannot sink it! Is it true or it is just a rumor?!
|
Whoa, lets get this straight, Evolution is not a theory, it is Scientific fact. The theoretical is the How Why and When.
|
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 15:04 |
Originally posted by red clay
Originally posted by Phosphorus
I googled it and I got your article titled as "The Fall of the Evolution Theory". I skimmed it, and at the occasion I will peruse it. It again reminded me of the notorious "Edwards vs Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 482 U.S. 578" case. I think this case is a violation of the freedom of speech! Creationism Science-or whatever, no matter how much it would sound crazy to some, should be taught at least as a hypothesis that humans used, and still use, to believe throughout the history. Because the evolution itself is still a "theory" and not a certain principle which is to refute Creationism wholly.
P.S. You mention Titanic movie in your article. I have heard that its captain had stated, in an interview with a journal just before starting the voyage, that this ship, Titanic, is as cool as even God cannot sink it! Is it true or it is just a rumor?!
|
Whoa, lets get this straight, Evolution is not a theory, it is Scientific fact. The theoretical is the How Why and When.
|
This is correct that the main body of the work seem rational and the whole body of experimental works is scientific. But as far as I get it when you read articles in this regard still terms such as "theory", "hypothesis", and "synthesis" do show up instead of "principle". By the way I did not say it is unscientific, I just emphasized the theoretical bases.
|
Quaere Verum
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 15:05 |
Originally posted by red clay
Originally posted by Phosphorus
I googled it and I got your article titled as "The Fall of the Evolution Theory". I skimmed it, and at the occasion I will peruse it. It again reminded me of the notorious "Edwards vs Aguillard, U.S. Supreme Court, 482 U.S. 578" case. I think this case is a violation of the freedom of speech! Creationism Science-or whatever, no matter how much it would sound crazy to some, should be taught at least as a hypothesis that humans used, and still use, to believe throughout the history. Because the evolution itself is still a "theory" and not a certain principle which is to refute Creationism wholly.
P.S. You mention Titanic movie in your article. I have heard that its captain had stated, in an interview with a journal just before starting the voyage, that this ship, Titanic, is as cool as even God cannot sink it! Is it true or it is just a rumor?!
|
Whoa, lets get this straight, Evolution is not a theory, it is Scientific fact. The theoretical is the How Why and When.
|
I concur as does the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 15:16 |
Thank you C.V., it was a useful link for me.
Even if one day evolution turned into a mere fact, I still do not see it as a rationalization for banning creationism from being taught in schools. People must be informed that which case, out of evolution and creationism, is supported by science and which one is refuted scientifically. Then it is all up to humans to believe each.
|
Quaere Verum
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 15:30 |
Originally posted by Phosphorus
Thank you C.V., it was a useful link for me.
Even if one day evolution turned into a mere fact, I still do not see it as a rationalization for banning creationism from being taught in schools. People must be informed that which case, out of evolution and creationism, is supported by science and which one is refuted scientifically. Then it is all up to humans to believe each.
|
Your welcome. As to creationism it had and still has it's place. For the simple reason that as an American I still, in my mind if not using my body, defend the right for another's viewpoint...even when I might disagree. As long as their objective about it. Otoh, I also am not so arrogant that I don't realize that evolution and other theories as the article is alluding too... are subject to review and reinforcement. In the absence of fact then..... I will continue to feel comfortable with faith as well.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Phosphorus
Janissary
Joined: 21-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2012 at 15:38 |
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis
Your welcome. As to creationism it had and still has it's place. For the simple reason that as an American I still, in my mind if not using my body, defend the right for another's viewpoint...even when I might disagree. As long as their objective about it. Otoh, I also am not so arrogant that I don't realize that evolution and other theories as the article is alluding too... are subject to review and reinforcement. In the absence of fact then..... I will continue to feel comfortable with faith as well. |
Yes I agree to in case of defending freedom of speech. As for the faith, I will never forget once an atheist (in its sheer significance: someone born of atheist parents who traditionally, and not due to modernistic developments, did not believe in anything) told me that "faith" is anyway a gift for the faithful!
|
Quaere Verum
|
|