I have found no studies yet that indicate as long as Creationism is "an acceptable alternative" science in our classrooms will suffer.

You don't need studies to understand that ant. You only need your brain.

Premise1: The scientific process is an integral part of education.
Premise2: It is a widespread belief that that creationism cannot be true at the same time the scientific process is considered legitimate.
Conclusion: Pushing creationism as a rival to evolution undermines education.

Premise 2 is actually only true by appearances. Part of the problem is that as most young people are exposed to the debate, they aren't educated against polarization. Eugenie Scott does a good job giving lectures on the false dichotomy, and how belief runs on a spectrum. But unless we educate everyone prior to their exposure to the debate between creationism and evolution, they are seen as rivals - mutually exclusive and equal in validity.

Actually our town atheists conveniently ignore the simple fact that Americans have simply slipped into a lazy, hedonistic life style that is all about instant gratification. Our secular culture is more interested in football, beer, and self glorification. Our people want everything handed to them. It is a sense of entitlement.

Very strange anecdote. In my town, it's just the opposite. All the religious people are the lazy ones, with the pastors of local churchs driving BMW 7's and bragging about membership numbers. I'd assumed since America is one of the most religious nations on Earth that our collective laziness was due to widespread religious belief.

I don't really believe that, but it's fun being absurd with generalizations, isn't it?

Interbane,

Look at premise 2. It has the soundness of a wet tissue paper.
Your impromptu argument falls apart as a result
Are you self critical enough to tell me why it holds no water?

Tell me while I find a computer to throw at you. This website is impossible to manage from an IPhone

You're a few steps behind ant. Google the God/Evolution dichotomy, and how the continuum doesn't necessarily entail mutual exclusivity. Then form an argument and present it against premise 2, so that I may show you why you're wrong.

Premise2: It is a widespread belief that that creationism cannot be true at the same time the scientific process is considered legitimate.

You are speaking of literalist interpretation of 6 days of creation. That is NOT a view unanimously accepted by religious adherents.
Premise 2 is a widespread, broad brush job. It's as structurally sound as a house of cards. Your argument crumbles as a result.

The scientific process attempts to explain the process of nature itself, and nothing else. You, like Dexter, Johnson, and other atheists here are being hard-headed about this.

Use that big brush!

It's so nice to be lumped into one big group where everyone thinks just alike.

What do you think your fellow atheists are doing each and every time you speak of religion?

I'm not interested in playing your game, Ant.

Chris,

There are other elements in play here. You are being hypercritical of religion by stating it alone is responsible for the county's poor performance in math and science. That's what you're bottom line here is, right?

Much of what you posted (have you updated your info?) has language that allows the admissibility of Creation to be introduced as an ALTERNATIVE consideration. A student is left to explore the differences and arrive at his own conclusions.

Religion has been and always will be a major driving force in the lives of millions. It's difficult for people to be happy with the explanations that atheists have for the meaning of life - we are highly evolved monkeys. I love my family because I love them and because it's important that my genes survive. I help my neighbor because it benefits the tribe. there is no reason for existence, we simply exist. the universe was created out of nothing.., and other meaninglessness atheists hold as true.

Trumpetting how we all lived on the bottom of the ocean does not resonate with many people wondering about the meaning and value of life.

ant wrote: Religion has been and always will be a major driving force in the lives of millions. It's difficult for people to be happy with the explanations that atheists have for the meaning of life - we are highly evolved monkeys. I love my family because I love them and because it's important that my genes survive. I help my neighbor because it benefits the tribe. there is no reason for existence, we simply exist. the universe was created out of nothing.., and other meaninglessness atheists hold as true.

Trumpetting how we all lived on the bottom of the ocean does not resonate with many people wondering about the meaning and value of life.

No doubt, people grasp for comforting things to believe in. That doesn't make it true.

I don't find the universe as described in the Bible to give a satisfying "meaning of life." In fact, it would make life on Earth utterly trivial in comparison to the afterlife. If you believed it, it seems you should just spend your life bowing to God, or doing whatever else is necessary for a golden ticket. Or if it's predetermined by God, then that would make it all the more meaningless.

You are speaking of literalist interpretation of 6 days of creation. That is NOT a view unanimously accepted by religious adherents.

I'm speaking of nothing other than the apparent dichotomy. You are educated enough to know that it's a false dichotomy. I wish you would educate the rest of the country, especially before they see any polarizing tidbits on the news, or hear it from their evangelical pastor. Eugenie Scott spends a great deal of time educating people on this precise misunderstanding, because it is a widespread misunderstanding. It is an answer to problem of religious thinking undermining education. Go figure - more education.

The scientific process attempts to explain the process of nature itself, and nothing else. You, like Dexter, Johnson, and other atheists here are being hard-headed about this.

You're right ant. I wouldn't disagree with this. Actually, I would ask you to spread the news, because educating people on this is what the country needs, to combat the polarizing effect of the mainstream debate.

You missed the point of premise 2 it seems. I'm speaking of the impression, not the objective truth. If people could cut past the crap and suddenly manifest the truthful conclusion within their heads, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately, it takes an army of educators just to hold back the tide of ignorance. What's worse is there are educators teaching that there is a dichotomy.

A student is left to explore the differences and arrive at his own conclusions.

As if the student were learning in a vacuum you mean? Immune to the influences of media, pastors, biased teachers, and misinformed parents? You have a simplistic view of how a person learns if you believe the above.

I help my neighbor because it benefits the tribe. there is no reason for existence, we simply exist. the universe was created out of nothing.., and other meaninglessness atheists hold as true.

"Meaningfulness" is not a necessary condition for something to be true. Most of humanity seems to suffer from that misunderstanding. Religious belief, through whatever means, is about comfort, not truth. Finding meaning in the things you believe is comfortable. It is a preferable to have such comforting beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are true. That is a key point in discerning how motive usurps the truth. In general, people aren't motivated to believe in what's true. There are a host of other more influential factors that motivate belief, including comfort.

Sometimes, I wish my brain were different. I wish "comfort" was my ultimate concern, rather than the truth. Then I would content, I would even revel, in the religious mindset. Teleological thinking is extremely fun, and helpful for crafting plots and playing games.

Hello all,

Please pardon my late entry into this discussion. If I might just ask a couple of questions (and my apologies if these have already been answered and I've just missed it):

1) @ Dexter

I don't find the universe as described in the Bible to give a satisfying "meaning of life." In fact, it would make life on Earth utterly trivial in comparison to the afterlife. If you believed it, it seems you should just spend your life bowing to God, or doing whatever else is necessary for a golden ticket. Or if it's predetermined by God, then that would make it all the more meaningless.

What exactly do you think the universe as described by the Bible is?

2) @ Interbane

It is an answer to problem of religious thinking undermining education

Am I correct to assume that by 'religious thinking' you are referring to Young Earth Creationism? If not, then could you explain what you mean by this term. Thanks

Doulos wrote:Hello all,

Please pardon my late entry into this discussion. If I might just ask a couple of questions (and my apologies if these have already been answered and I've just missed it):

1) @ Dexter

I don't find the universe as described in the Bible to give a satisfying "meaning of life." In fact, it would make life on Earth utterly trivial in comparison to the afterlife. If you believed it, it seems you should just spend your life bowing to God, or doing whatever else is necessary for a golden ticket. Or if it's predetermined by God, then that would make it all the more meaningless.

What exactly do you think the universe as described by the Bible is?

I'm talking about God deciding whether you will enter Heaven, based on your faith. That is what the Bible describes, and what many people believe, isn't it?