Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:17 PM wb3 said this in Post #24

There is a different interpretation for every thing in life. Is the glass half full or half empty. You have thousands of scientists with thousands of theories on both sides. Neither side can nail down one definite way it happened. Therefore you must present them both fairly. The majority of the population with a religon is Christian. This is no reason to teach on "religious" view. Yet you need to teach every theory of evolution no matter how foo the wall.

Is the earth flat?  Can you come up with an interpretation that makes the earth flat?

1. You have less than 200 scientists on the "side" of creationism. These scientists have at least 10 theories -- from YEC to ID.

2. We know that creation did not happen by creationism.  All forms of creationism have been falsified by the data.  Therefore we cannot honestly teach creationism as a valid theory.

3. While evolutionists argue the details of speciation or of individual lineages, they agree on common ancestry, descent with modification, and the importance of natural selection.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:50 PM wb3 said this in Post #15

Excuse you! I would not go up to you and tell you are completely wrong about a particular belief without presenting a shred of evidence. I expect the same respect out of everyone that is decent enough to participate in a forum such as this.

Wb3, we can go into as much detail as you like concerning the data that falsifies creationism.  I was presenting a summary of the situation. Several threads on this board do go into the falsifying data.

Where would you like to start?

Now, my individual belief is that as evolution is not a scientific law such as is gravity and in the process of BELIEVING it you must make some assumptions as do you in creation.

Theories are broader than laws.  Gravity isn't a "law" either. It is also a theory.  A very well supported theory. So well supported that we accept it as (provisionally) fact.  Evolution is exactly the same.  Supported so well that we accept it as (provisionally) fact.  BTW, evolution incorporates laws: the laws of Mendelian genetics, the Hardy-Weinberg Law, Cope's Rule, Haldane's Law, etc.

First you really must somewhat believe in the Bible.

Here you are disagreeing with your fellow creationists.  All creationist organizations, from ICR to AiG to ARN, say that creationism is independent of the Bible and can be derived from scientific observations alone.

 Separation of church and state means the government cannot endorse a view. Teaching creation/evolution is neither endorsing a THEORY but fairly presenting a view for young adults to decipher between. Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as is evolution.

I'm afraid the last sentence is incorrect. Creationism was falsified by 1831.

Yes, separation of church and state means the government can't endorse a view. Since creationism is a falsified theory, the only reason to teach it as valid is to promote a sectarian view.  That means endorsing a particular version of religion.

You are aware, aren't you, that the biggest opponents of teaching creationism in public schools are Christians and Jews? In the 1982 McLean vs Arkansas trial, of 26 plaintiffs trying to keep creationism out of public schools, 23 were ministers or rabbis.  McLean was Reverend McLean.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:01 PM wb3 said this in Post #17

the evidence for evolution. I have not seen any compelling evidence yet. maybe you can offer some that does conflict with my source of reasoning, the Bible.

This is a different topic.  Whether you are convinced.  Creationism is an idea independent of the people that hold it. That you aren't convinced has no bearing on whether evolution is valid or creationism falsified.

Take this out of evolution for a moment. There are several atheists in this forum.  They are not convinced of the evidence for the existence of God.  Are you willing to accept that this means that God does not exist?

Have you read On the Origin of the Species?  Have you read D. Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology? Have you searched PubMed for articles on evolution?

If you bury your head in the sand and don't look at the evidence, of course you won't be convinced.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:05 PM wb3 said this in Post #18

The next time you drop a wood board on your big toe, you tell me gravity is not a law.

Oh yeah, well next time you drop a wood board on your big toe, you tell me it's not a bunch of tiny invisible winged elephants pulling that board onto your toe.

 

[SplitRock]

Today at 07:50 PM wb3 said this in Post #15

Excuse you! I would not go up to you and tell you are completely wrong about a particular belief without presenting a shred of evidence. I expect the same respect out of everyone that is decent enough to participate in a forum such as this.
Now, my individual belief is that as evolution is not a scientific law such as is gravity and in the process of BELIEVING it you must make some assumptions as do you in creation. First you really must somewhat believe in the Bible. You may say that that violates separation of church and state but in reality it does not. Separation of church and state means the government cannot endorse a view. Teaching creation/evolution is neither endorsing a THEORY but fairly presenting a view for young adults to decipher between. Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as is evolution. I am a hardcore Creationist, yet I believe that if either one of these theories is going to be taught they both should be.

First I want to thank Jon and wb3 for being the only creationists to respond to my question.  I would like to know what form off creationism you both think should be taught and why. 

Wb3 you indicated that evolution is not a scientific law.  I am a scientist and I can tell you that it is without question a well established theory and one fundamental to our understanding of biology.  There is no rule for calling something a law, as opposed to an established theory, so one could call evolution a law.  For example, no one seriously denies that matter is made up of atoms, yet we refer to the Theory of the Atom, rather than the Law of the Atom.  Although you may have doubts about evolution, mainstream scientists do not.  Have you studied it at all (not from creationist sites)?  In addition, scientific creationism is not considered a valid scientific theory, because it is not based on natural law. 

Concerning the separation of church and state the courts have ruled that a law must be for a secular purpose, not a religious purpose.  This is to prevent the government from endorcing a particular religion over all others.  If teaching of a particular religious view was legislated by the government, this would mean that that view was endorsed by the goverment, which is against the Constitution.  Would you like it if Hindu creation were taught in your biology class?  Probably not.  That is why no religion should be taught in science classes.

Think about it.  Thanks again for your response.

 

[jo-shmo]

Hey I hate to butt in but I have to write a paper on "Should creation be tought in public schools". Sorry it sounds like I'm against evolution being taught. I'm not. My prof. changed it from the original and I'm stcuk with it. Anyway, I would be accedingly grateful if anyone could give me advice on where to find good info that can be cited. I can find a ton if stuff but weeding through it takes forever. Thanks

I would like to add that I do believe that both should be taught. I have not studied either theory nearly so much as I would liked to have but it doesn't take very much to realize that both have problems. I do understand that evolution is a fundamental theory but in my humble opinion it takes as much faith to believe that life come from non-life as it does to believe that God created it. Regardless. Until either is proved beyond a shadow af a doubt I believe they both should be covered. Not that either should be endorsed by the gov. Just that both should be explained.

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

[MartinM]

Evolution doesn't say that life came from non-life, Jo.

 

[kaotic]

Yesterday at 06:31 PM Arikay said this in Post #4

I agree with martin. Creationism could be put in science books as an explination of why science and god should be kept seperate, that when you say "god did it" its no longer science.

It could also be used as an example of how science works and falsifies theories.

I agree.

 

[Arikay]

Although I dont really have any links about the school debate, may I suggest you read this:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Its a bit about evolution. As others have mentioned, Life coming from non life isnt evolution. Currently its called Abiogenesis, and is seperate from evolution.

The biggest problem is that for creationism to be taught as a science it needs to be able to be seperated from the bible and still stand on its own. So far, every group that has tried to seperate it from the bible has failed, some miserably.

Today at 12:06 AM jo-shmo said this in Post #46

Hey I hate to butt in but I have to write a paper on "Should creation be tought in public schools". Sorry it sounds like I'm against evolution being taught. I'm not. My prof. changed it from the original and I'm stcuk with it. Anyway, I would be accedingly grateful if anyone could give me advice on where to find good info that can be cited. I can find a ton if stuff but weeding through it takes forever. Thanks

I would like to add that I do believe that both should be taught. I have not studied either theory nearly so much as I would liked to have but it doesn't take very much to realize that both have problems. I do understand that evolution is a fundamental theory but in my humble opinion it takes as much faith to believe that life come from non-life as it does to believe that God created it. Regardless. Until either is proved beyond a shadow af a doubt I believe they both should be covered. Not that either should be endorsed by the gov. Just that both should be explained.

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

[jo-shmo]

I haven't studied that much but I do know what abiogenesis is. Maybe I know more about it than I thought. I agree, it shouldn't be taught in science class. Maybe there should be an "origin of life class" where the top theories are explained. Something along those lines. I just know that at every youth service we have there are troubled teens that come to me with their problems looking for answers. School is not simply crowding the youth of our nation into classrooms and filling their heads with knowledge. Its about making them think and offering direction. Sorry I sound like a jerk but I'm only 21 and the position of youth pastor has just been dropped on me. I now spend my Friday nights planning the service and Wednesday nights at the service. I have 18 hours of classes and work part time on top of that. I deal with these kids and see the struggles they are going through. Society places so much pressure on teens nowadays that most adults I know would crumble within a week. For most of these kids Jesus is the only friend or father they know. But when they go to school they get taught that He doesn't exist. Half the kids I see weekly want to go to school just so they can get two meals in one day. I'm sorry that I disagree so strongly but people today need to know that school is not just where children learn, it is where they are shaped, molded, and given direction. It should not be that way but it is. The problem is that they are only given one direction and nobody is even positive beyond doubt that it is the right one. Wether they show it or not children respect their teachers and believe what they say. I would defend my third grade teacher today if what she taught me was questioned. What I'm getting at is that unless they are taught in school that evolution isn't the only account for the origin of life then they will accept it as fact and defend it without properly knowing the material for either side.

Wow! Where did that come from. Geez I think I just wrote my paper. Sorry I flew off like that. I guess I'm a tough guy when I'm staring at a computer screen.

 

[MartinM]

It's a well-written piece, Jo.

However, in the two hours since I last posted to this thread, evolution has not become a theory of the origins of life

Leaving that aside, the bottom line is simply this - schools will never teach that which the scientific community knows to be false.

 

[JillLars]

Yesterday at 06:24 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #9

Various groups that are lobbying to have creationism inserted to science class are doing so for theological reasons, not scientific ones. Hence, it should not be taught in science class (unless, yes, you want to demonstrate how theories are falsified in the course of scientific discovery).

But teaching creationism in science class would be like teaching Shakespeare in gym class. It's the wrong venue.

I totally agree with this Pete.  The creationism theory is not the only theory out there, so where do we draw the line.  Would it be appropriate to teach greek or roman mythology in a science class?  Or any other cultural or religious beliefs.

 

[Arikay]

Nice writing, Mind if I comment on it a bit?


I haven't studied that much but I do know what abiogenesis is. Maybe I know more about it than I thought. I agree, it shouldn't be taught in science class.

Why not? Currently abiogenesis is a grouping of hypothesis and studies. It should be taught that way. It is science and should be taught as science. Just the same, it should Not be taught as the end all argument, just the current one science has, that so far seems to work.

For most of these kids Jesus is the only friend or father they know. But when they go to school they get taught that He doesn't exist.

But they arent taught he doesnt exist. Unless you can tell me how evolution or Abiogenesis teaches Jesus does not exist? All they teach is that the bible (more specifically, the OT) is not always literal, but I dont see how that effects Jesus.

If they believe the entire bible is literal, please stop them before they go try to test their faith, as the bible says, and drink poison.

it is where they are shaped, molded, and given direction.

Exactly, and thats why the science teachers should Not be lieing to the kids.

What I'm getting at is that unless they are taught in school that evolution isn't the only account for the origin of life then they will accept it as fact and defend it without properly knowing the material for either side.

Well, they shouldnt be taught evolution is the origin of life in the first place. They also shouldnt be taught that creationism is an equal theory with evolution, as that is false.

The danger is, that by teaching creationism, you are teaching the kids that the bible must be taken literally. This may actually damage their faith when they go through life and discover that creationism isnt what it was cracked up to be. They may then start questioning other teachings. Then decide that if the bible cant be taken literally then it is all a complete lie and they will lose their faith.


Another way to look at this. You could always teach the kids that god made a creation (the universe before the big bang) so amazing and advanced that even now, with all of our technology, we are only barly scratching the surface of how he did it.

Today at 03:01 AM jo-shmo said this in Post #50

I haven't studied that much but I do know what abiogenesis is. Maybe I know more about it than I thought. I agree, it shouldn't be taught in science class. Maybe there should be an "origin of life class" where the top theories are explained. Something along those lines. I just know that at every youth service we have there are troubled teens that come to me with their problems looking for answers. School is not simply crowding the youth of our nation into classrooms and filling their heads with knowledge. Its about making them think and offering direction. Sorry I sound like a jerk but I'm only 21 and the position of youth pastor has just been dropped on me. I now spend my Friday nights planning the service and Wednesday nights at the service. I have 18 hours of classes and work part time on top of that. I deal with these kids and see the struggles they are going through. Society places so much pressure on teens nowadays that most adults I know would crumble within a week. For most of these kids Jesus is the only friend or father they know. But when they go to school they get taught that He doesn't exist. Half the kids I see weekly want to go to school just so they can get two meals in one day. I'm sorry that I disagree so strongly but people today need to know that school is not just where children learn, it is where they are shaped, molded, and given direction. It should not be that way but it is. The problem is that they are only given one direction and nobody is even positive beyond doubt that it is the right one. Wether they show it or not children respect their teachers and believe what they say. I would defend my third grade teacher today if what she taught me was questioned. What I'm getting at is that unless they are taught in school that evolution isn't the only account for the origin of life then they will accept it as fact and defend it without properly knowing the material for either side.

Wow! Where did that come from. Geez I think I just wrote my paper. Sorry I flew off like that. I guess I'm a tough guy when I'm staring at a computer screen.

 

[Isaac112086]

My observation:
There were once dinosaurs
There are no longer dinosaurs
If T-Rex and Elephant co-existed ever, Elephant would of been driven extinct
Elephant still exist

 

[Northern Christian]

Of course Creationism should be taught in schools! It's the only theory on the origins of reality that has evidence to support it. We could teach evolution in public schools, but it would take forever to teach all of the facts that refute it.

 

[OneLargeToe]

Of course Creationism should be taught in schools! It's the only theory on the origins of reality that has evidence to support it.

WHAT evidence? And please don't start quoting Bible verses, because that is certaintly not evidence.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

We could teach evolution in public schools, but it would take forever to teach all of the facts that refute it.

Facts? Or wishful thinking?

 

[Jet Black]

Of course Creationism should be taught in schools! It's the only theory on the origins of reality that has evidence to support it. We could teach evolution in public schools, but it would take forever to teach all of the facts that refute it.

name one. just one.

 

[euphoric]

Of course Creationism should be taught in schools! It's the only theory on the origins of reality that has evidence to support it. We could teach evolution in public schools, but it would take forever to teach all of the facts that refute it.

I see you've studied at the JohnR7 School of Inane Contradiction. It's best when engaging in written debate to avoid saying something this utterly indefensible as it it is terribly difficult to deny having said it later. On the off chance that you can provide a well-reasoned argument to support this assertion, we'd be thrilled to hear it.

-brett

 

[OneLargeToe]

Yet another creationist makes a claim and doesn't back it up. That's intellectual dishonesty, right?

Isn't being dishonest sinful?