Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Brightmoon]

I subscribe to Kenotaxy, a variation of YEC. I don't believe that we can find direct evidence of Godly creation. I DO believe, however, that there is an abundance of evidence that contradicts the macro-evolutionary model. In all fairness, those findings should be taught right alongside evolution for a more balanced view.

• These findings fit the (macro-)evolutionary model...
• These findings contradict it...

MACROEVOLUTION IS SPECIATION
For example the clade that includes all frogs ,whether extinct or extant, have a common ancestry . That’s macroevolution over a long time because it includes a lot different species, in an entire Order ( Anura)
That is the scientific definition . If you’re going to use science terminology then use it correctly . Creationists usually don’t use scientific terminology correctly, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about

 

[Sabertooth]

MACROEVOLUTION IS SPECIATION

I understood speciation to be micro-evolution.

 

[Anguspure]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creationsim is not science, although it may use scientific arguments to support the position, it is an ideological position.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, does fit the criteria of being science.

The reason that it cannot be taught is because it offends Scientism which is not science either.

 

[Brightmoon]

I understood speciation to be micro-evolution.

Microevolution is variation within a species. Like eye or skin color within Homo sapiens. Once you get another species,even if closely related , that’s macroevolution like the horses , donkeys and zebras in genus Equus. Creationists misuse scientific terminology and they do it on purpose to confuse people.

 

[Sabertooth]

Microevolution is variation within a species. Like eye or skin color within Homo sapiens. Once you get another species,even if closely related , that’s macroevolution like the horses , donkeys and zebras in genus Equus.

Good to know. My reading of macro-evolution is speciation and higher. How should I make the distinction between speciation and higher evolution (which is what I meant to say in the first place)? Would that be special evolution...?

 

[Brightmoon]

Good to know. My reading of macro-evolution is speciation and higher. How should I make the distinction between speciation and higher evolution (which is what I meant to say in the first place)? Would that be special evolution...?

No ! to continue the horse lineage , they are also Perissodactyla which also includes tapirs and rhinoceros ,and this is also macroevolution . Species is the basic unit . Anything above that is just for convenience in keeping track of them Closely related species are in the same genus . Closely related genera are in the same family . Etc Here’s the real family tree with the caveat that bacterial lineages are actually much much larger as they consist of several kingdoms of organisms

 

[Sabertooth]

No !

That is why the Creationists appropriated macro/micro the way they did...

 

[JacksBratt]

. That life came from chemical process is pretty obvious. Life is a multilayered chemical process
The universe less than a few million years after the Big Bang can be seen . Earlier that that the universe is too bright and dense to see the origin . Explosion isn’t really a good way to describe the Big Bang . But since you’re ignorant of the actual science involved you’re just spouting off creationist pseudoscience nonsense

Goo to zoo to you summarizes about 3 billion years of common descent in a silly aphorism. It’s accurate despite the silliness. Maybe it’s time you learned the details

The "big bang"? Has it not been tossed to the side already? Life.... from a chemical process? Seriously? Proteins alone are so complex that the chances of them happening randomly is absurd... then.. proteins are needed for DNA... the odds are insurmountable.... then... the third thing... life....strike three.. you're out.

The idea that "nothing" exploded into "everything" is preposterous.

Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there must be a designer.....

 

[AlexDTX]

. Creationists ignore inconvenient evidence that they are wrong. that alone means that they aren’t doing science but merely practicing confirmation bias . A real scientist would be embarrassed to be found out that they are that careless and/or ignorant .

There were once two competing hypotheses for the spread of Homo sapiens . Scientists did not ignore the evidence the other side proposed and eventually with more evidence over the years they realized that they both were correct . More that one protohuman species contributed to our current species genome and Homo sapiens spread from Africa . . That’s how science is done . It’s not done by ignoring confirmed facts like creationists do.

Your faith in Christ is in vain if Adam did not exist. The creation (not evolution) of Adam, from who we are reproductions by procreation, that sinned is why Jesus came and died. If mankind evolved, there is no original sin that caused us all to be fallen, therefore no need for a new humanity through the new birth.

 

[gideon123]

OP

Let me say these things respectfully. My comments here are not an attack on you, and most certainly not an attack on your faith.

I am a scientist, with a strong faith in God.

The thing that you call Ceeation Science is no science at all. It is mythology. It is a collection of half-baked ideas strung together with no supporting facts. There is no reputable scientific journal anywhere that considers these ideas valid.

The whole 'creation science' movement will collapse, just as all fantasies do. Nothing that is built on falsehoods can survive. Those peoole who think they are doing a 'great thing' by constructing a false interpretation of science ... are in fact dishonoring God. The Lord's handiwork is visible in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Those truths are built on the data in the world, and God put that data there.

The great tragedy is that the American Church refuses to face its own errors and grievous sins. A generation of young Christians went to home schooling, or church education, and were given textbooks with false 'creation science'. But when they go to college and they carefully study the theories of geology, astronomy, biology, physics and math ... then they realize the creation science from their Christian program was a load of bunk. At that time, they close their Bibles and never go back to the Word Of God at all.

What a tragedy, because of palpably false teaching.

Let me say again, I am not attacking anyone's faith in God. Let those who have faith be patient, while Science slowly unravels the mysteries of the Universe.

Blessings!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi BH,

I appreciate your response, but it didn't answer the questions I asked. I'm curious, while I see that you understand the gospel of our salvation through Jesus as being very, very important, where does the rest of God's word stand as far as importance in believing what God has told us?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I am not discounting that there are other edifying or instructional, or informative things in God's Word. But this always must play in harmony with Jesus Christ. If there is no Jesus added to our understanding of these other truths in Scripture, then we defeat the purpose of who we are following. One is either following Creation Science, or other truths or agendas or one is following Jesus. That is my point. All truths in God's Word, and all instructions must fall under the umbrella of glorifying Jesus Christ and what He has done for us. For I can do all things through Christ (Which strengthens me). Just knowing about Genesis 1 alone does not save me. But Jesus surely can save. My problem with Creation Ministries, and or Creation conversations is that they do not talk about Jesus enough. It seems like it is always about the creation and not Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The problem I have with Creation discussions is that Macro-Evolution (Which is a fantasy) is the opposite end of the discussion to how God plainly describes the creation in six literal days in Genesis 1. This is not the gospel. Christ dying for our sins, and raising three days later is the gospel. That is our focus and ministry. Jesus. He is the way. Not Creation Science or Theistic Evolution. Sure, we should know the truth on Genesis 1, but this should be to the uplifting of what Christ did for us. For if we do not add Jesus in our discussion on the creation, everything we know falls apart. Our focus is wrong or off. Jesus is our everything. We should never take our eyes of Christ when we discuss the truth of creation. Jesus must always be uplifted and glorified in everything we do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As science, probably not, as an alongside evolution, absolutely.

I'd have answered only creation should be taught, but that's been done, and all we got out of it was a much more tolerable age compared to today....and we can't have that now, can we.

 

[gideon123]

'Creation Science' has no credible science, and therefore it is a form of apostasy.

Inagine that someone opened a new school of Theology and began teaching gnosticism. How would you feel? That is certainly also a form of apostasy.

So my feeling is that if you want to promote false ideas and to encourage apostasy, then by all means teach 'Creation Science'.

 

[nolidad]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Not in science! But then again as "macro-evolution" and the big bang" cannot be validated by the scientific method also, they should not be taught in science classes as well!

 

[jamesbond007]

Not in science! But then again as "macro-evolution" and the big bang" cannot be validated by the scientific method also, they should not be taught in science classes as well!

Part of creation science is to debunk evolution. Using natural selection, artificial selection, hybridization, epigenetics, and even GM (which I am not in favor of), we can show that the tree of life is bogus. The common ancestor line, for example, tailed to tailless monkeys cannot happen. Other hybrids would not survive. There can only be certain animal classes that can interbreed with each other. These are variations within a kind and not mutations. Mutation lines have never been proved to survive. Here is an summary of what creationists believe in regards to ToE today; it is supported by a college in Tennessee. Unfortunately, I am not able to use one of their articles, but the opposition, as I have been unsuccessful in finding a overall summation and comparison -- Baraminology.

 

[jamesbond007]

Here is a simple example of what secular and atheist scientists believe and what creation scientists believe in regards to the formation of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest (pronounced Eve-rest).

It's interesting that these scientists ignore the findings of marine fossils on the top of Everest and the Himalayas. Here is what creation scientists have found:

"What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

• ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
• ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
• ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
• The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1"

Most of it is marine organisms and evolution has no explanation for find marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and in the Himalayas. They just make us fairy tales to explain the evidence. For example, the world's oldest whale fossil was found in the Himalayas. Evos said it walked up there haha, but no evidence of legs or feet. None of the other marine animals had feet either.

World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas

Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were formed from beneath the ocean as a great earthquake caused monoliths to come up from under the sea floor. This explains the marine fossils. This what creation scientists believe. I ♥ to use fake scientist, Bill Nye, to show he does not know what he is talking about.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Sorry but his video debunked itself in the first frame. Bible teaches the earth is flat, stationary and enclosed. If you're going to define and defend creationism, then let God be true and every man a liar. If you research it you might find that the observational and experimental data using scientific method actually backs it up (the horror!). Flat, stationary, enclosed. As the Bible teaches. Praise the Lord.
Over 200 Bible scriptures say the earth is FLAT! #FlatEarthDoctrine

 

[Brightmoon]

The "big bang"? Has it not been tossed to the side already? Life.... from a chemical process? Seriously? Proteins alone are so complex that the chances of them happening randomly is absurd... then.. proteins are needed for DNA... the odds are insurmountable.... then... the third thing... life....strike three.. you're out.

The idea that "nothing" exploded into "everything" is preposterous.

Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there must be a designer.....

Misquoting Dawkins , even by paraphrasing, doesn’t prove your point . He thinks ID is ridiculous pseudoscience

Your faith in Christ is in vain if Adam did not exist. The creation (not evolution) of Adam, from who we are reproductions by procreation, that sinned is why Jesus came and died. If mankind evolved, there is no original sin that caused us all to be fallen, therefore no need for a new humanity through the new birth.

I actually consider creationist pseudoscience nonsense to be blasphemy as it’s a lying description of Nature. I also consider it to be dangerous because millions of people have already starved to death over pseudoscience ideology being practiced instead of correctly using evolution to oversee agricultural practices.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I actually consider creationist pseudoscience nonsense to be blasphemy as it’s a lying description of Nature.

Isn't the Creator a creationist?