"The Plot to Kill Evolution" (Wired Magazine)

JL, I think this may be the first time we disagree on anything...

several school science programs do that. In Pa we have a short segment on "theory" hypothesis, "Scientific method" "falsification" etc

I don't understand what you want. Science is not the only course on the curriculum. There are plenty of places to learn the rest of what is out there.

What I want?
I want to divorce religion from the superstition that has usurped it.
But for now I just want to call attention to the fact that in school I was taught christianity as fact. I was also taught about evolution and science. I never disregarded either. I always tried to understand how both could be true when they seemed so obviously to contradict eachother. The conflict is a well of revelations, and it is a real shame that people that don't understand their own beliefs want to take away something so productive.
And the adversity leads young minds to pick a side, when they could benefit so infinitely much more from embracing both and seeking to reconcile them within themselves.

Are you saying evolution contradicts science? If you are, you are wrong. Or, if you are saying religion and science contradict each other, it depends on how you practice your religion. Most scientists try to not interfere with religious thought.

Well, some religious beliefs contradict science.

But it is even possible that creationism is a more acurate description of the origin of everything than evolution. It all rests on the assumption that the physical world preceeded consciousness. But is there really any proof of that?

By the way, I am no creationist, I am just exploring ideas. I don't need to hear all the reasons why creationism is obviously crazy because I am not interested in the absolute truth of anything.

Besides, the only interesting thing about any belief or fact is what embracing or rejecting it does to you. And that should be the basis on which we chose our beliefs, not "truth".

To each his own is my philosophy, so long as that does not interfere with others 'own.'

No its not even remotely possible. If you accept that Creationism even clsoely approximates truth, then you are a Creationist.
Fortunately, applied exploration sciences do not utilize Creationist dogma.Ive asked several times in the past whether anyone can display ANY scientific advancement or discovery that relies on Creationist dogma. The response has been deafening silence these many years.

This is such errant bullshit. And your knowledge of English is not so poor that you don't know you're peddling bullshit. Religion is superstition because it has to be accepted on faith, and without evidence. Science is entirely about the accumulation of evidence, and the formulation of hypotheses and theories which account for the evidence without being subject to falsification.

It's pathetic how the drum beaters for religion will warp language and understanding to hawk their flawed goods.

Boy, if I ever saw someone step into quicksand, you're it.

Setanta, you are not very perceptive if you think I am trying to sell religion. I do not believe in creationism, but I enjoy fairytales and it's a nice story.

I also enjoy exploring alternative ideas, a concept that seems utterly alien to you by all evidence. I do not feel that I have to be willing to defend an idea with my life in order to express it.
Sadly your inflated sense of what you think you know makes you blind to oportunities presented to you every day to learn something that you can't think of on your own. If that is of no interest to you, then tell me why anyone should respect your opinion?

Nobody has ever suggested you defend with your life what you post here on a2k.

No, I don't think creationism even remotely approximates truth.
"Truth" is the real bullshit, to borrow Setanta's advanced rethorics.
I understand the difference between truth and fact. Fact is a matter of empirical science, and there is no better alternative available to us in determining facts and their relation with eachother.
Truth, on the other hand, has nothing to do with what actually is. It has to do with choice. What you chose to believe in. For some people everything doesn't have to be rooted in fact to have practical value in their lives. And practical value is a far better measure for the "rightness" of any belief than truth will ever be.

Simply put, truth is observed by the individual, and not necessarily by others. Facts have consensus, and can be proven.

So, you do not "Believe in " Cretionism because why? Because its a lie? and by being a lie cannot be evidenced?.

Whats yer point then?

Trying to embrace a story as a fairy tale but still recognizing it as false, is merely enetertainment which may be ok for you.

I still don't understand why cyrcuz is posting here. We have science, which he appears to not dispute. Then we have his "truth." How do the two subjects intersect?

That's where logic determines where he's at.

Because you enjoy fairy tales, they should be taught in school in science classes? That is useful for learning science because?

Tell me why anyone should respect your opinion.

By the way, "rethoric" is not a word in English.

No Setanta. Fairytales should not be taught as fact. Not as truth either. But by teaching various fairytales and teaching the nature of "truth" I think it would actually be harder for creationists to maintain their belief that their faith is fact.

As to why I am posting, it's to explore some ideas, and I am getting what I wanted.

As to the word rhetoric, thanks for pointing out my mistake. English is not my native language.