One of the neatest projects that I had during my International Bacheloreate program for Computer Science in High School, got me hooked in the subject in College. Our teacher basically told us to write a program in Pascal(...**shiver** **shiver**)that demonstrated a basic knowledge of FILE I/O, Arrays (again..**shiver**), and memory managment. Granted this was a very basic project, it taught us how to use our skills in ways that would benefit our lives and those of others. Okay, so my Aquarium database/journal was not a Nobel Price for Technology winning project (IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!), it still got me hooked in Comp. Sci and got me a phatty job after college.
I agree completely with your statements. I was merely trying to show what their perspective is. I believe that Jeffk67 comments are a little more along the lines of what I was trying to get at. You cannot just say that Creationism does not exist. It does. It is a theory, while having no scientific merit it is still a theory. Rather than be ignorant of other's views, it should be taught (as Jeffk67 suggested) to show why evolution is more credible (ie. the examples that you provided). I hate ignorance of facts, but in this situation we must be careful that it does not become a double-edged sword.
Don't get me wrong on this subject. I believe in evolution (I still believe that some people have yet to get past the Ape stage...but thats another matter..hehe). For evolution however, there is only evidence. No proof. Proof is evidence that no other conclusion can be made (which is fairly rare). Yes, I like secular philosophy. So sue me.
God gave us curiosity for a reason. He gave it us because "[He] wants it that way". IMO, you have missed the point. I do not believe that we can ever understand God, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about trying to understand our Earth.
Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution. Its a mode point however a fairly important one in the debate. I would say that teachers would not have to teach it to the students, however mentioning that other theories have been proposed, for purposes of furthering their awareness would not hurt either.
A scientist doesn't rely on faith. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that one. Do you not need faith in your on theory that you have based on fact? When you defend a scientific theory you do so with the knowledge that you have observed/calculated and understood the idea with all of your resources. If someone counters your theory with other evidence that you see is flawed, you have faith that your evidence was correct in the first place. You are right though in saying that creation "science" is flawed, for it really has no other proof other than faith in one viewpoint.
Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth? Evolution evidence is not as nearly clearcut as this, but I would say that a difference betwee a few billion years and 5-7000 year old earth is pretty remarkable.
Where is Jon Erickson? We need a non-biased, non-judgemental view on this important situation!
Seriously though this should not even be an issue in education. IMHO, Certainly people are entitled to their own opinions/thoughts and actions however when it comes to state sponsered eductation, religious views should be expressed but NOT solely expressed. If they are solely expressed then students (of whom my Federal taxes go towards their benefit) are left with only one piece of the puzzle, and this is basically no better than state sanctioned censoring. I have no problem with teaching Creationism but it should not be taught that IT is more true than evolution.
I feel your pain. Being that our company continues to "innovate" new solutions all the time I would like to hear from you. Please email me at billyg@hotmail.com Thank you, BillyG CEO Micro$haft hehe
Slashdot Mirror
If it runs in Windoze, then we've got nothing to worry about.
One of the neatest projects that I had during my International Bacheloreate program for Computer Science in High School, got me hooked in the subject in College. Our teacher basically told us to write a program in Pascal(...**shiver** **shiver**)that demonstrated a basic knowledge of FILE I/O, Arrays (again..**shiver**), and memory managment. Granted this was a very basic project, it taught us how to use our skills in ways that would benefit our lives and those of others. Okay, so my Aquarium database/journal was not a Nobel Price for Technology winning project (IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!), it still got me hooked in Comp. Sci and got me a phatty job after college.
I agree completely with your statements. I was merely trying to show what their perspective is. I believe that Jeffk67 comments are a little more along the lines of what I was trying to get at. You cannot just say that Creationism does not exist. It does. It is a theory, while having no scientific merit it is still a theory. Rather than be ignorant of other's views, it should be taught (as Jeffk67 suggested) to show why evolution is more credible (ie. the examples that you provided). I hate ignorance of facts, but in this situation we must be careful that it does not become a double-edged sword.
You are a unique...just like everyone else.
Don't get me wrong on this subject. I believe in evolution (I still believe that some people have yet to get past the Ape stage...but thats another matter..hehe). For evolution however, there is only evidence. No proof. Proof is evidence that no other conclusion can be made (which is fairly rare). Yes, I like secular philosophy. So sue me.
God gave us curiosity for a reason. He gave it us because "[He] wants it that way". IMO, you have missed the point. I do not believe that we can ever understand God, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about trying to understand our Earth.
Good point, but in playing devils advocate one could argue that there is no proof to evolution. Its a mode point however a fairly important one in the debate. I would say that teachers would not have to teach it to the students, however mentioning that other theories have been proposed, for purposes of furthering their awareness would not hurt either.
A scientist doesn't rely on faith.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that one. Do you not need faith in your on theory that you have based on fact? When you defend a scientific theory you do so with the knowledge that you have observed/calculated and understood the idea with all of your resources. If someone counters your theory with other evidence that you see is flawed, you have faith that your evidence was correct in the first place. You are right though in saying that creation "science" is flawed, for it really has no other proof other than faith in one viewpoint.
Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth? Evolution evidence is not as nearly clearcut as this, but I would say that a difference betwee a few billion years and 5-7000 year old earth is pretty remarkable.
Where is Jon Erickson? We need a non-biased, non-judgemental view on this important situation!
Seriously though this should not even be an issue in education. IMHO, Certainly people are entitled to their own opinions/thoughts and actions however when it comes to state sponsered eductation, religious views should be expressed but NOT solely expressed. If they are solely expressed then students (of whom my Federal taxes go towards their benefit) are left with only one piece of the puzzle, and this is basically no better than state sanctioned censoring. I have no problem with teaching Creationism but it should not be taught that IT is more true than evolution.
I feel your pain.
Being that our company continues to "innovate" new solutions all the time
I would like to hear from you. Please email me at billyg@hotmail.com
Thank you,
BillyG
CEO Micro$haft hehe
You are an individual, just like everyone else.
Or make your own after a Taco Bell(R) burrito