Creationism in public schools?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Citanul

Well, when exactly do you mean?
May 31, 2006
3,425
2,621
45
Cape Town, South Africa
✟209,743.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
That is called brain-washing. There is not enough proof to support your opinion. Children should be treated fairly. Leave evolution for college, and only then as an elective.

It really isn't that important anyways...

What criteria are you using to decide whether evolution should be left till college? There would have to be something a little more rigorous than simply the fact that you don't like it.

And while the intricate details of evolution may not be that important at a school level, it is a fairly important branch of science and so should be touched on in at least some form or another. I don't see anything wrong with teaching the basic framework of evolution - even those with some objection to it will end up with a proper understanding of what they're actually opposing.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Brothers/Sisters,

So...all of this creationism vs. evolution debate over the years and what should be taught in public schools has interested me...but not to the point where I've gotten emotionally involved. Looking back...I've been rather aloof in terms of my seeking regarding this issue. However...reading another thread in the "Christian Current Affairs" section got me thinking. Then it hit me...why does it have to be one or another? Why not teach kids the following in our public school systems:

1. Evolution Theory
2. World Religion Creationism
3. Other misc. theory

Why this overt attempt to control the thinking of our youth when the truth is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE? We just think we know! The simple fact is none of us were alive back then. It just seems to me that this is the most humble approach. We should avoid being arrogant...and I say that because of:

Jer 8:8(NIV)
" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

See? We don't know for sure...so lets quit acting like we do.

Here is my question:

Why not give our youth's the various schools-of-though and let them choose...or not choose?

Hugs,
CC

Because it is the responsibility of science teachers to teach either the scientific consensus or the leading scientific theories if there is any serious debate. Creationism does not fit either of these criteria. The addition of any sort of creationist module to the sylabus would be nothing more than a sop to try to appease a vocal minority.

You don't teach astrology as an alternative theory to astronomy in science class.
You don't teach alchemy as an alternative theory to chemistry in science class
You don't teach creationism as an alternative theory to evolution in science class.

Its really just that simple.
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Brothers/Sisters,

So...all of this creationism vs. evolution debate over the years and what should be taught in public schools has interested me...but not to the point where I've gotten emotionally involved. Looking back...I've been rather aloof in terms of my seeking regarding this issue. However...reading another thread in the "Christian Current Affairs" section got me thinking. Then it hit me...why does it have to be one or another? Why not teach kids the following in our public school systems:

1. Evolution Theory
2. World Religion Creationism
3. Other misc. theory

Why this overt attempt to control the thinking of our youth when the truth is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE? We just think we know! The simple fact is none of us were alive back then. It just seems to me that this is the most humble approach. We should avoid being arrogant...and I say that because of:

Jer 8:8(NIV)
" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

See? We don't know for sure...so lets quit acting like we do.

Here is my question:

Why not give our youth's the various schools-of-though and let them choose...or not choose?

Hugs,
CC

:clap::clap::clap::wave::wave::wave:

Evolution is intelligent design. Bottom line.

No matter what got us to man (Adam), the value of human life began there.

It's best to allow the secularists their perspective in public schools but challenge them in your Church and elsewhere. Our Church does just that. We hold open forums for discussing what we call Godlessism versus reality.

Evolution has been used - as your words that I highlighted and raised show - for the advancement of an anti-religion humanism, liberal and progressive political agenda that just doesn't cut the mustard when challenged. Watch what happens when you hold open forums. You can even do them off site.

Have you read What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza?

Have you seen John Lennox debate Richard Dawkins?

Have you been to the Fixed Point Foundation website?

Have you been to the BioLogos or Peter Kreeft websites?

Evolution as origins??? Umm, OK. Evolution as Godlessness? That's easily dealt with.

It's time to start having fun and equiping our youth for reality. And actually it's been going for quite some time.
 
Upvote 0

Citanul

Well, when exactly do you mean?
May 31, 2006
3,425
2,621
45
Cape Town, South Africa
✟209,743.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Evolution has been used - as your words that I highlighted and raised show - for the advancement of an anti-religion humanism, liberal and progressive political agenda

But should evolution be rejected just because of what people have used it for? That same argument would lead to you rejecting the Bible as a result of the things its been used to support.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What criteria are you using to decide whether evolution should be left till college? There would have to be something a little more rigorous than simply the fact that you don't like it.

And while the intricate details of evolution may not be that important at a school level, it is a fairly important branch of science and so should be touched on in at least some form or another. I don't see anything wrong with teaching the basic framework of evolution - even those with some objection to it will end up with a proper understanding of what they're actually opposing.

It does not help a young adult succeed in life and make good decisions. That is what elementary and high school is all about...To try and form a well rounded person. We want our high school grads to at least be able to balance a checkbook, read and write intelligently, know basic state and country history, and be familiar with basic science.

Now, I will drop the "evolution is a religion" for just a second and say it should be looked at the same as "Differential Equations". Not everybody needs to be taught it...only those who want to go into a field of study that requires it....so leave it in college and only required those who are going into whatever (hate to degrade any science by including evolution).
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Better yet...how about it being an elective in high school, but NOT required for college admission? I mean, if the child or his/her parents want their child taught evolution...fine, but is is wrong to make children learn it.

My kids will not be in class nor will they take any test dealing with evolution unless they tell me they want to and AFTER we sit down and talk about Creationism.

Luckily, I live deep enough in the South that the teachers refuse to teach it.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Better yet...how about it being an elective in high school, but NOT required for college admission? I mean, if the child or his/her parents want their child taught evolution...fine, but is is wrong to make children learn it.

My kids will not be in class nor will they take any test dealing with evolution unless they tell me they want to and AFTER we sit down and talk about Creationism.

Luckily, I live deep enough in the South that the teachers refuse to teach it.

What about geography? Should geography be held off until college, or taught in high school only in the college prep path, and then only as an elective? Or Economics? Or, really, anything more advanced than "the three Rs"? Why have high school at all then? Teach them enough to recognize and count their paycheck and then throw them into the "real world." Let them learn in the "school of hard knocks."

BTW you never answered my last question. Is cartography (map making) a religion?
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But should evolution be rejected just because of what people have used it for? That same argument would lead to you rejecting the Bible as a result of the things its been used to support.

I don't reject evolution. It is worthless to me and to mankind as a whole. What is it? How man became an sentient being?

So what?

Adam still fathered Seth and the Bible is on course. Both were human beings. Just like us.
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
What about geography? Should geography be held off until college, or taught in high school only in the college prep path, and then only as an elective? Or Economics? Or, really, anything more advanced than "the three Rs"? Why have high school at all then? Teach them enough to recognize and count their paycheck and then throw them into the "real world." Let them learn in the "school of hard knocks."

BTW you never answered my last question. Is cartography (map making) a religion?

How does the teaching of evolution help us in the "real world?"

We no longer scratch our food from the dirt and we certainly don't chase down and sieze our prey and mates?

We evolved past the need for evolution as natural selection. Darwinism has seen its day come and go.

Let us move on to important things.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
How does the teaching of evolution help us in the "real world?"

We no longer scratch our food from the dirt and we certainly don't chase down and sieze our prey and mates?

We evolved past the need for evolution as natural selection. Darwinism has seen its day come and go.

Let us move on to important things.

That's just it....the worth of evolution does not matter. Only the idea being pushed...."Bible is wrong and evolution proves it". That is all that matters.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's just it....the worth of evolution does not matter. Only the idea being pushed...."Bible is wrong and evolution proves it". That is all that matters.

Is that what you think Evolution is? No wonder you are so afraid of the whole idea.

You do realize that that fear is on the same level as the fear of black magic being involved in a <<mirror*>> which can show an owner at homewhat is happening in and around his business several miles away

*closed circuit TV

The basic principles of what evolution really is is taught in Genesis chapter 30, and todays farmers rely on those principles even more than Jacob ever did.

The only difference between selective breeding and evolution is that it is the forces of Nature (and Nature's God) that does the selection, not man.
 
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟45,495.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It does not help a young adult succeed in life and make good decisions. That is what elementary and high school is all about...To try and form a well rounded person. We want our high school grads to at least be able to balance a checkbook, read and write intelligently, know basic state and country history, and be familiar with basic science.

Now, I will drop the "evolution is a religion" for just a second and say it should be looked at the same as "Differential Equations". Not everybody needs to be taught it...only those who want to go into a field of study that requires it....so leave it in college and only required those who are going into whatever (hate to degrade any science by including evolution).

Evolution is "basic science." It is one of (if not the) foundational theories of biology. Not teaching evolution in a biology class is like teaching chemistry without talking about atoms. It's like teaching history by only going over events that happened in the past week.

Better yet...how about it being an elective in high school, but NOT required for college admission? I mean, if the child or his/her parents want their child taught evolution...fine, but is is wrong to make children learn it.

My kids will not be in class nor will they take any test dealing with evolution unless they tell me they want to and AFTER we sit down and talk about Creationism.

Luckily, I live deep enough in the South that the teachers refuse to teach it.

Luckily, you live in a region of the country where teachers willingly deprive children of knowledge? That's fantascinating. It's not wrong to teach children evolution. It's only wrong in your mind because it disagrees with your literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

The fact of the matter is this: evolution is a scientific theory. It forms the basis of modern biology. Its principles have given rise to new discoveries in everything from medicine to computer science. Creationism (and its pseudoscientific form, intelligent design) are outdated modes of belief that have been disproven long ago.

The entire idea of YECism is a last-ditch attempt to bring back ideas that disappeared in the 18th or 19th century. There is no empirical evidence of creation according to the YEC interpretation, nor is there any empirical evidence of "intelligent design." On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that points in the direction of an old earth as well as evolutionary theory.

Hopefully by the end of this century, YECism will die off again. It has only resurged in recent times (relatively speaking, that is).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How does the teaching of evolution help us in the "real world?"

A basic understanding of life processes is necessary background for almost any agricultural, animal husbandry, veterinarian, medical, or phamacological career. And absolutely vital in the research branches. You have to know how and why H1N1 (swine flu) mutates in order to combat it.

We no longer scratch our food from the dirt and we certainly don't chase down and sieze our prey and mates?

Do we still rely only on faith healing? Or do we have modern hygiene and medicine? We wouldn't have them if we didn't study basic life sciences -- including evolution.

We evolved past the need for evolution as natural selection. Darwinism has seen its day come and go.

Let us move on to important things.
:doh:
 
Upvote 0

bahumbas

Newbie
Feb 10, 2010
23
1
✟15,133.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Brothers/Sisters,

So...all of this creationism vs. evolution debate over the years and what should be taught in public schools has interested me...but not to the point where I've gotten emotionally involved. Looking back...I've been rather aloof in terms of my seeking regarding this issue. However...reading another thread in the "Christian Current Affairs" section got me thinking. Then it hit me...why does it have to be one or another? Why not teach kids the following in our public school systems:

1. Evolution Theory
2. World Religion Creationism
3. Other misc. theory

Why this overt attempt to control the thinking of our youth when the truth is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE? We just think we know! The simple fact is none of us were alive back then. It just seems to me that this is the most humble approach. We should avoid being arrogant...and I say that because of:

Jer 8:8(NIV)
" 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

See? We don't know for sure...so lets quit acting like we do.

Here is my question:

Why not give our youth's the various schools-of-though and let them choose...or not choose?

Hugs,
CC

Personally I think creationism and evolution ought to be tought in a world's religions class. As for the actual science which does kind of lean on evolution as a basis of their findings and scientific explaination make it known that it is an assumption not a fact.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Better yet...how about it being an elective in high school, but NOT required for college admission? I mean, if the child or his/her parents want their child taught evolution...fine, but is is wrong to make children learn it.

So what other classes be made electives? The fact is taht if you send your children to a public school you must deal with the public school courses. If you don't want to do that, send your kids to private school.

My kids will not be in class nor will they take any test dealing with evolution unless they tell me they want to and AFTER we sit down and talk about Creationism.

Just out of curosity, what would you do if your children inform you that they accept evolution and rejuct creationism? What if that accept creationism, but they decide that the Norse or Greek creation stories are more acceptable?

Luckily, I live deep enough in the South that the teachers refuse to teach it.

I find this statement hard to believe because there are state requirements. However, if this is true then it is a sad statement of the education system in your state.

For those on this thread who have said that evolution is just a theory, so is gravity. Should we stop teaching children about gravity?
 
Upvote 0

AoDoA

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2010
861
84
✟1,478.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because it is the responsibility of science teachers to teach either the scientific consensus or the leading scientific theories if there is any serious debate. Creationism does not fit either of these criteria. The addition of any sort of creationist module to the sylabus would be nothing more than a sop to try to appease a vocal minority.

You don't teach astrology as an alternative theory to astronomy in science class.
You don't teach alchemy as an alternative theory to chemistry in science class
You don't teach creationism as an alternative theory to evolution in science class.

Its really just that simple.

"Each new revelation in genetic research, no matter how bizarre and unforeseen, can be construed as a ringing confirmation of the theory of evolution, or so evolutionary biologists would have us believe. With this book, Dr. Lee Spetner risks the wrath of the evolution establishment by challenging the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory, or "dogma" as he calls it. Evolutionists assume that the observed ability of organisms like finches and bacteria to adapt to altered environments is clear proof of the NDT, which holds that random mutations in the DNA molecule are a prime factor in these adaptations. But this inference is negated by compelling new evidence at every level of biology according to Spetner, whose credentials include an MIT doctorate in physics, expertise in molecular biology, and published papers on biology in prestigious scientific journals. Numerous experiments are cited indicating many of these survival modifications are linked to a particular class of nonrandom mutations responding on cue to specific changes in the environment. A given external stimulus will trigger the same chain reaction of hormone-induced DNA mutations every time, yielding an identical adaptive response.Spetner claims research findings like these which don't fit approved doctrine are simply ignored by evolutionary biologists. That charge is echoed with gusto by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, who issues scathing denunciations of their obscurantist tactics in "Slanted Truths." She believes the "stranglehold" of the Darwinian "religious movement" can only be broken by a rational counter-force from outside the fold. Spetner's authoritative book is an ideal instrument for this deliverance. Critics of the NDT will savor the hard-science rigor of molecular arguments adduced against a theory they believe is largely based on speculative just-so stories.
In a historical overview, the author reminds us that when the so-called synthetic theory was first crafted fifty years ago, DNA had yet to be discovered. Darwin himself was blissfully ignorant of the functions and structure of the cell. We now know that mammals are composed of trillions of cells, each containing an information-packed DNA molecule and hundreds of interacting organelles. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask: What if Darwin's quaint theory were advanced today for the first time? The proposal that a clumsy hypothetical mechanism modeled on eighteenth century economic theories and pigeon breeding practices could possibly account for the origins of EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT in the incredibly complex universe of microbiology unfolding before our eyes would be laughable. The hodgepodge theory of evolution has become a religious faith so deeply ingrained in its adherents they appear oblivious to its absurdities. This book relates how stunning advances in biotechnology in just the past two decades have dramatically widened the gulf separating the realities of empirical science from the myths of neo-Darwinism.
A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding.
The author's diversified background, which also includes lectureships in information theory and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, enables him to speak expertly on a host of technical issues surrounding this subject. Laymen who've fallen behind the dazzling pace of microbiology will be intrigued by his lucid account of the counter-intuitive adaptive strategies in Nature's arsenal. The architecture and mechanisms of the DNA molecule are examined in depth, introducing lay readers to a host of basic concepts like introns, transitrons, point mutations, mutation rates, genetic information and heritable genetic switches. This potent brew is spiced with liberal doses of humorous asides and amusing anecdotes.
It should be noted that Spetner's work is narrowly focused on the purely secular, scientific aspects of his topic. It rarely strays into the domains of metaphysics or theology. Amazon reviewers of this book who parrot mindless shibboleths about creationism and gods of the gap as they did with Michael Behe's ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box " will clearly establish they either didn't read the book or have been hopelessly brainwashed in orthodox biology classes.
To appreciate the extent of evolutionists' distortions in the classroom, one has only to browse through a current biology textbook after reading Spetner. To cite one case, he has found thousands of examples of convergence, or parallel evolution, buried in the literature, so one might assume they are a significant fact of biological life. He demonstrates mathematically the impossibly long odds against these uncanny near-identities of features in unrelated species, like wings in birds and bats, being evolved by any feat of natural selection. Evidently academic biologists prefer not to dispute this conclusion. A typical nationally distributed college text, "Biology " by N.A. Campbell, contains 1200 pages saturated with evolution mythology, but just one short paragraph on convergence. An equally inextricable companion phenomenon, mimicry, is completely ignored. Other slanted omissions and distortions abound.
Spetner's definitive treatise on what many consider an extremely important issue deserves a much wider audience than it presently commands. Whereas the shelf space afforded the evolutionist tomes of Dawkins and Steven J. Gould in the mega book stores Barnes & Noble and Borders is measured in linear feet, "Not by Chance" is nowhere in sight, not even in inventory. These giant outlets are rapidly driving out alternative book sellers. The inability of an author of Spetner's stature to address a substantial segment of the population that would be sympathetic to his message amounts to de facto censorship by a quasi-monopolistic distribution system. Although most of them will never have the opportunity, avid evolutionists would find this slender volume an eye-opening read."


this comes from the Amazon.com page for Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance! Shattering the modern theory of evolution"


I remember recently seeing a short video clip showing that foxes kept in captivity were changing very quickly into what appeared to be dog like creatures


and ironically they claim this to support evolution when it in fact supports convergence and a rapid specific non random adaptation to a specific environmental change
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
P

ParanoidAndroid

Guest
Because it is the responsibility of science teachers to teach either the scientific consensus or the leading scientific theories if there is any serious debate. Creationism does not fit either of these criteria. The addition of any sort of creationist module to the sylabus would be nothing more than a sop to try to appease a vocal minority.

You don't teach astrology as an alternative theory to astronomy in science class.
You don't teach alchemy as an alternative theory to chemistry in science class
You don't teach creationism as an alternative theory to evolution in science class.

Its really just that simple.
Wow, I've never considered astrology and alchemy as kindred spirits in regard to creationism and evolutionary science. Thanks for the thought - while I'm still sifting through the info you've provided, it does bring something to consider in this respect :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.