• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curriculum?

Should public schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?

  • Total voters
    29
Xelor said:
Should public schools teach Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?
  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know
  • Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory.

Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

ETA:
I was raised in the Episcopal faith, but Lemaitre's creation theory is good enough AFAIC.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious to see all the people voting no because they don't know what his theory was.
 
AmNat said:
It's hilarious to see all the people voting no because they don't know what his theory was.
Click to expand...

Well, "hilarious" isn't the adjective I'd have chosen, but I won't object to "hilarious."


I don't really know why folks chose the "no" option, but not knowing what Lemaitre's creation theory states is certainly among the reasonably plausible and probable causes for folks' doing so. That folks are unfamiliar with Lemaitre's theory is what it is, and, frankly, I'm not of a mind to chide someone for simply not knowing the man proposed. I find it extremely disconcerting and lamentable that, to the extent they don't (didn't when they answered) know what Lemaitre posited, they yet chose an answer other than "I don't know." For doing that I would indeed chide them, for there's truly no reason or justification for answering, in the affirmative or negative, an Internet discussion forum poll question one doesn't fully understand.

As for the folks who answered "no" and did know what Lemaitre posited, I'd ask them the following questions:
1 -- Why are you of the mind that the Big Bang Theory should not be taught in science classes?
2 -- In what class(-es) do you think the Big Bang Theory should be taught?

As I explained earlier in this thread, elements of the Big Bang Theory and/or the techniques and thought processes leading to and establishing its preponderant veracity were, when I attended middle and high school, taught not only in my science classes, but also in history and math classes. Perhaps a school may teach the Big Bang Theory as part of one of a non-science curricula, but doing so would be uncharacteristic and outside the scope of those disciplines.
 
marke said:
How many possibilities of error exist in 4 or 5 billion people with their own opinions?
Click to expand...
First of all the "possibility" of a statement's being errant or not errant has to do with the nature of the statement itself and what is/was existential. How many people think/believe a given assertion is true/untrue has nothing to do with whether the statement is true/untrue. To think that the quantity of people who believe true/false a given assertion is to succumb to the logical-thought flaw, aka fallacy, of argumentum ad populum.

All the believing in the world will not make true that which one (or many) believes. Similarly, all the disbelieving in the world will not make untrue that which one (or many) disbelieves.

​


For any given assertion there is at least one "possibility" that said assertion is errant or true, or at least preponderantly errant or preponderantly true.
  • Binary truth/untruth --> The "possibility" is 1:2
  • Proportionally true/untrue --> The "possibility" is some ratio other than 1:2.
In light of the number of assertions in the Bible, something on the order of ~30K, there is a lot of "possibility" for error, particularly since a good deal of what's asserted in the Bible is predicated on the statement "there is a god," an assertion that as yet has not been established as factually true, being a true statement.
 
Xelor said:
Should public schools teach Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?
  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know
  • Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory.

Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

ETA:
I was raised in the Episcopal faith, but Lemaitre's creation theory is good enough AFAIC.
Click to expand...

I oppose teaching anything in a science class that doesn't have a strong scientific consensus that it is true and doesn't have strong scientific peer reviewed evidence. According to surveys, 97% of scientists support evolution and only 2% support creationism and there is virtually no creationist evidence that hasn't been refuted or passed the muster of peer review. If you want to teach theology-related scientific hypotheses that haven't gained a scientific consensus then I suggest teaching it in a separate philosophy, scientific speculation class, or theology class.
 
marke said:
God teaches the truth about the creation of the universe and the formation of original life on earth. All contrary theories are wrong.
Click to expand...

In Your Opinion. Contrary opinions are available on demand and free of charge.
 
marke said:
How many possibilities of error exist in 4 or 5 billion people with their own opinions?
Click to expand...

There was a time when almost everyone believed the world was flat and the sun orbited the earth but that doesn't make them right.
 
distraff said:
There was a time when almost everyone believed the world was flat and the sun orbited the earth but that doesn't make them right.
Click to expand...
People have not been believing evolutionist foolishness very long. It is a fad that will eventually be totally devastated by the mounting new scientific understandings.
 
marke said:
People have not been believing evolutionist foolishness very long. It is a fad that will eventually be totally devastated by the mounting new scientific understandings.
Click to expand...

Actually the theory of evolution is accepted by nearly the entire scientific community and has 97% support. Your claim is clearly false.
 
Xelor said:
If a theory that posits how the universe came into existence isn't a creation theory, I don't know what is
Click to expand...
We both know exactly what you were doing when you used the term "creation theory" in your OP. You might be technically accurate here but you know the baggage associated with the phrase and played with it. Your game seems to have run it's course though. You're just lopping around the same old empty arguments now.

Xelor said:
moreover, I can think of no better place to teach Lemaitre's creation theory than in science classes, no matter one's stance on its veracity/accuracy.
Click to expand...
I never questioned that for a moment. It already is and will continue to be.
 
distraff said:
Actually the theory of evolution is accepted by nearly the entire scientific community and has 97% support. Your claim is clearly false.
Click to expand...

Then nearly the entire scientific community is wrong. Sadly.
 
marke said:
For every weak argument you submit in support of nonsense evolution I can give you two strong evidences against the nonsense.
Click to expand...

Why don't you start with your two strong arguments then?
 
distraff said:
Why don't you start with your two strong arguments then?
Click to expand...

1. Life is not just chemicals. Chemicals do not think. Chemicals cannot design complicated biological formulas for life. Only God can do that.

2. The genetic code does not allow for mutations to gradually accumulate and transform a living creature into something which is totally foreign to its genetic makeup.
 
marke said:
1. Life is not just chemicals. Chemicals do not think. Chemicals cannot design complicated biological formulas for life. Only God can do that.
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't claim that chemicals design new complex biological formulas. It claims that DNA codes for these formulas and that natural selection and mutations will adapt new biological complexity by tweaking DNA.

2. The genetic code does not allow for mutations to gradually accumulate and transform a living creature into something which is totally foreign to its genetic makeup.
Click to expand...

Actually mutations are building up in every creature whether you believe it or not. Every single person has about 100 mutations and those collect over generations. Mutations by definition do transform creatures because mutations modify DNA which modifies creatures and those changes increase the more generations we have.
 
distraff said:
Evolution doesn't claim that chemicals design new complex biological formulas. It claims that DNA codes for these formulas and that natural selection and mutations will adapt new biological complexity by tweaking DNA.
Click to expand...

You apparently are missing the fact that Darwinists have not proven DNA and natural selection have the power and ability to see what is needed and to formulate extremely complicated chemical arrangements by the billions necessary to create, change or perform living functions.

Actually mutations are building up in every creature whether you believe it or not. Every single person has about 100 mutations and those collect over generations. Mutations by definition do transform creatures because mutations modify DNA which modifies creatures and those changes increase the more generations we have.
Click to expand...

In order to support evolution a researcher must assume life began somehow with something like a single-celled creature with millions of specific chemical arrangements designed for the creature to come to life, eat, reproduce and continue living. Those chemical arrangements are not simple and yet DNA and natural selection do not have brains and power to manipulate biological formulas. God must have been involved. There is no other possibility.
 
marke said:
You apparently are missing the fact that Darwinists have not proven DNA and natural selection have the power and ability to see what is needed and to formulate extremely complicated chemical arrangements by the billions necessary to create, change or perform living functions.
Click to expand...

Natural selection and mutations can't see ahead but they will implement changes that are best for survival. They coded these complex structures because these structures are better for survival not from any plan. Evolution gradually improves the initially simple structures over time as positive mutations are selected and builds up and these structures become more advanced and better for survival.

In order to support evolution a researcher must assume life began somehow with something like a single-celled creature with millions of specific chemical arrangements designed for the creature to come to life, eat, reproduce and continue living.
Click to expand...

It is true that you need an initial life-form with the ability to replicate, consume the environment, and some kind of coding for its features for evolution to be possible. Evolution cannot create the first life-form and the origin of the first life, whether by God or nature is irrelevant to whether evolution can work on that initial life to make it more advanced. Abiogenesis is a separate debate.

Those chemical arrangements are not simple and yet DNA and natural selection do not have brains and power to manipulate biological formulas. God must have been involved. There is no other possibility.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before mutations very much can modify physiology by modifying DNA. So it is obvious they do have the power to manipulate biological formulas.
 
distraff said:
Natural selection and mutations can't see ahead but they will implement changes that are best for survival.
Click to expand...


Baloney. Natural selection is not a god. It does not have a body. It cannot think. It cannot design and make complicated DNA arrangements by the billions in order for just one creature to have life. The reason Darwinists refuse to speculate as to how life originated on earth is because Darwinism cannot produce the source of the brains and power needed for original life to be formed in the first place. Darwinists reject God but leave a void in His place.

They coded these complex structures because these structures are better for survival not from any plan.
Click to expand...

"They" did that? How? By using their brains? By exercising intelligence far above and beyond the best humans have yet to produce in the history of man? Do you not understand that this speculation is not scientifically proven, just blindly believed? DNA did not invent itself and DNA does not have the brains or power to make changes to itself.

Evolution gradually improves the initially simple structures over time as positive mutations are selected and builds up and these structures become more advanced and better for survival.
Click to expand...

You are claiming some entity besides God added to the original information in the genetic code to make changes which Darwinists believe must have taken place from the beginning until now. There is absolutely no scientific basis for assuming DNA adds information to itself, and especially no scientific proof DNA thinks about what is needed so as to add just the right changes for the better.

It is true that you need an initial life-form with the ability to replicate, consume the environment, and some kind of coding for its features for evolution to be possible. Evolution cannot create the first life-form and the origin of the first life, whether by God or nature is irrelevant to whether evolution can work on that initial life to make it more advanced. Abiogenesis is a separate debate.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Evolution becomes exposed as the world class foolishness it is when questions about the origin of life arise. God created life, not natural selection, not DNA, not Miller and Urey or any other thinking entity. And DNA cannot think. It has no power to design and create new chemical arrangements to make changes in life forms.

As I mentioned before mutations very much can modify physiology by modifying DNA. So it is obvious they do have the power to manipulate biological formulas.
Click to expand...

You ascribe the power to make changes in living creatures to a false god. You say "they do have the power." That is the basis for a false religion in which the forces of nature are believed to have the intelligence and power of God to manipulate life forms by making beneficial changes to the genetic code. God created the genetic code and He can make changes, but dead chemicals cannot. They are dead. They do not think. They cannot plot and plan. They can do nothing but what God has designed them to do. Give God the credit for what God does and don't allow men to tell you their false gods did something those false gods did not do.
 
marke said:
Baloney. Natural selection is not a god. It does not have a body. It cannot think. It cannot design and make complicated DNA arrangements by the billions in order for just one creature to have life. The reason Darwinists refuse to speculate as to how life originated on earth is because Darwinism cannot produce the source of the brains and power needed for original life to be formed in the first place. Darwinists reject God but leave a void in His place.



"They" did that? How? By using their brains? By exercising intelligence far above and beyond the best humans have yet to produce in the history of man? Do you not understand that this speculation is not scientifically proven, just blindly believed? DNA did not invent itself and DNA does not have the brains or power to make changes to itself.



You are claiming some entity besides God added to the original information in the genetic code to make changes which Darwinists believe must have taken place from the beginning until now. There is absolutely no scientific basis for assuming DNA adds information to itself, and especially no scientific proof DNA thinks about what is needed so as to add just the right changes for the better.



Of course it is. Evolution becomes exposed as the world class foolishness it is when questions about the origin of life arise. God created life, not natural selection, not DNA, not Miller and Urey or any other thinking entity. And DNA cannot think. It has no power to design and create new chemical arrangements to make changes in life forms.



You ascribe the power to make changes in living creatures to a false god. You say "they do have the power." That is the basis for a false religion in which the forces of nature are believed to have the intelligence and power of God to manipulate life forms by making beneficial changes to the genetic code. God created the genetic code and He can make changes, but dead chemicals cannot. They are dead. They do not think. They cannot plot and plan. They can do nothing but what God has designed them to do. Give God the credit for what God does and don't allow men to tell you their false gods did something those false gods did not do.
Click to expand...

So in summary, you reject reason since it undermines your faith.

Natural selection is very simple. If a mutation is unfavourable, the organism is less likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and it's "selected" out of existence over time. If it's neutral, no harm. If it's positive, then the organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, so it's population increases, and it's "selected" to survive. No gods necessary, just the law of averages.
The fact and theory of evolution does not depend on your belief.
 
Manc Skipper said:
So in summary, you reject reason since it undermines your faith.

Natural selection is very simple. If a mutation is unfavourable, the organism is less likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and it's "selected" out of existence over time. If it's neutral, no harm. If it's positive, then the organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, so it's population increases, and it's "selected" to survive. No gods necessary, just the law of averages.
The fact and theory of evolution does not depend on your belief.
Click to expand...

Evolutionism is based upon fantastical beliefs in forces which are given god-like abilities to create and change life forms. Natural selection is not a living being. It cannot create life. It cannot add new information to the genetic code so 'elementary' life forms can evolve into 'more complicated life forms.' Where did the DNA for humans come from in the beginning? An amoeba? Poppycock. Evolutionism is a false religious belief in fantastical nonsense.
 
marke said:
Evolutionism is based upon fantastical beliefs in forces which are given god-like abilities to create and change life forms. Natural selection is not a living being. It cannot create life. It cannot add new information to the genetic code so 'elementary' life forms can evolve into 'more complicated life forms.' Where did the DNA for humans come from in the beginning? An amoeba? Poppycock. Evolutionism is a false religious belief in fantastical nonsense.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a fact. The forces involved are very simple. Any given mutation can improve or lessen the odds of an organism surviving to breed and reproduce. That is all. There's nothing magical about it, unlike your alternative.
 
marke said:
You can believe whatever you like. I will believe the Bible. The truth will always be true and everyone will become acquainted with the truth in the end no matter what they choose to believe for now.
Click to expand...

Correction you believe your personal interpretation of the bible
 
Manc Skipper said:
Evolution is a fact. The forces involved are very simple. Any given mutation can improve or lessen the odds of an organism surviving to breed and reproduce. That is all. There's nothing magical about it, unlike your alternative.
Click to expand...
Billions of various chemical combinations must be carefully arranged in the exact order for any one of millions of species to live and reproduce. Dimwitted Darwinists attribute the creation and manipulation of these chemical arangements to dumb luck. Evolution is not supported by observable science and good judgment, it is supported by blind faith in the preposterous.
 
There should be no discussion of any religion of any kind in public schools in the United States.

Period.

Reason being the Constitution.

If students want to learn about religion, it should be with parental consent and be extracurricular.
 
marke said:
Billions of various chemical combinations must be carefully arranged in the exact order for any one of millions of species to live and reproduce. Dimwitted Darwinists attribute the creation and manipulation of these chemical arangements to dumb luck. Evolution is not supported by observable science and good judgment, it is supported by blind faith in the preposterous.
Click to expand...

Many of the "chemicals" have been detected floating around in space. Did you know we are all made of stardust?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom