Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

jamesbond007 said:

So you do agree that it's creation vs. evolution and that's either/or? Lee Strobel comes out and says the same. I never understood the God created evolution thesis that Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, and others state because they do not accept Genesis. Is there a chance to be misled? Many Catholics believe it now because of Pope Francis since he's come out supporting it. How could Ross, Craig, the Pope, and many others believe evolution when it ends up disavowing God? They seem to ignore that part. The weakness of evolution lies in origins such as abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's either or...

You can't argue it. If God created the universe, why do it one way and tell us that you did it another.
I'm sure that, if you were to look at Adam and Eve, two days after they were made, you would see adult humans. Complete with post puberty bodies, fully developed musculature, and other physical features. Primary teeth and bones that have capped and would no longer grow.

Why would the earth be any different?

Secondly... Evolution has to explain where "life" originated. If they try to dodge this.. then they have to explain it's existence. Not only life though.. DNA, Proteins and cells... I mean really... if you look into the complexity that Darwin was totally unaware of.. it boggles ones mind to understand how anyone could accept this as all happening by chance.

Soon as you place a higher power, a superior intelligence or designer in the mix... God enters in.

Then we are back to my statement that I have stated here before..

God told us how He did it...
God is totally capable of doing it as He said.

Why put the assumptions and extrapolations of mere men, creations, ahead of those words of the creator?

Should it be taught.... in this world... with this state of the times and ideals... It's too late. People are too indoctrinated and too blind.

When I was in school in the 70's, the two were taught as theories.. Doubt if that would even fly today.

The hatred of God is too great. The arrogance of those in power who deny God is to blinding.

The deception is complete.

Of course not. Creation was a supernatural event. Science is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. Supernatural/spiritual realities lie totally outside the realm of science, and science therefore cannot make any valid statements concerning such realities.

In public schools? No. It would be a lesson in futility. The public school system should not be promoting any religion...separation of the church and state and all that rigamarole. It could be mentioned and perhaps explored in a World religions class.

miamited said:

Hi BH,

So for you, it's ok for someone to say that the 'first page' and the two times mentioned in the law just aren't true? Would it be lying for someone to say that, if the first page, and the two times mentioned in the law, were true? I mean, God has told them and they do know the truth, so that would make it a lie, if the account of creation is the truth of God.

God bless,
in Christ, ted

Click to expand...

Well, I already said I believe in Young Earth Creationism (Which supports a normal reading of the creation account). I am just saying that the greater reality or truth is Jesus Christ. Yes, the creation account happened, but it symbolically points to Christ, just as the animal sacrifices point to Christ.

JacksBratt said:

Well, everything exploding from nothing..... pretty supernatural..

Life spontaneously showing up from non life... pretty supernatural.

Our existence..... cannot be scientifically explained...

Ignorance of this.... allows one to accept events that are impossible such as "goo to you by way of the zoo".

Click to expand...

. 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

Erik Nelson said:

conventional science can be taught in a way which doesn't antagonize faith

Click to expand...

it is . Science doesn’t deal with supernatural phenomena at all. It does debunk pseudoscience and subjects claims about natural phenomena to a verification procedure. Some phenomena, which is claimed by religious conservatives to have happened,has miserably failed the verification process. At that point ,scientists are not going to agree that they did happen. I’ll repeat, the creationist claims failed . The ball is actually in the creationist court to come up with verifiable evidence that their ideas about nature actually happened. And just FYI lying about it is not evidence . Changing the definitions of scientific terminology isn’t evidence and neither is ignoring verifiable evidence .

Bible Highlighter said:

Well, I already said I believe in Young Earth Creationism (Which supports a normal reading of the creation account). I am just saying that the greater reality or truth is Jesus Christ. Yes, the creation account happened, but it symbolically points to Christ, just as the animal sacrifices point to Christ.

Click to expand...

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

jamesbond007 said:

NO!! NO! NO No and no! answer refers to you didn't read my links nor watch the video. Your Miller-Urey experiment and single-cell creation was debunked in the video. I doubt you watched it nor read the link. What kind of biologist were you? I'm giving you 1.5 stars out of 5 now. You are so biased that you cannot discuss this rationally nor scientifically. Remember, I said to use a priori reasoning and not just a posteriori. It's facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Click to expand...

Urey Miller only found evidence of amino acids and other organic chemicals coming from inorganic precursor molecules . Maybe you need to read and this time understand the experiment . By the way I’m old enough to have read about 20 years worth of creationist pseudoscience papers and have not been impressed with the level of lies, ignorance and deliberate obfuscation shown in them

jamesbond007 said:

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.

Click to expand...

First point: the government school systems need to be shut down completely. They were never meant to be venues of education. From their inception they were designed to create a class system similar to the Hindu caste system of India. Read what John Taylor Gatto has to say about it. Schools are clearly propaganda centers for the criminals who co-opted our government. Deuteronomy 4:9 tells us that parents should train their children.

Second point: Modern science is a product of Christian faith. The scientific method was developed on the assumption that God is a consistent Creator, therefore, He established laws in His creation that remain the same. If science began with evolutionary assumptions there would be no basis in establishing consistent laws of nature since it is all a matter of chance with no design or purpose.

Conclusion: take your kids out of school and teach them creation science yourself.

AlexDofTX said:

First point: the government school systems need to be shut down completely. They were never meant to be venues of education. From their inception they were designed to create a class system similar to the Hindu caste system of India. Read what John Taylor Gatto has to say about it. Schools are clearly propaganda centers for the criminals who co-opted our government. Deuteronomy 4:9 tells us that parents should train their children.

Second point: Modern science is a product of Christian faith. The scientific method was developed on the assumption that God is a consistent Creator, therefore, He established laws in His creation that remain the same. If science began with evolutionary assumptions there would be no basis in establishing consistent laws of nature since it is all a matter of chance with no design or purpose.

Conclusion: take your kids out of school and teach them creation science yourself.

Click to expand...

. Modern biological science which includes evolution/common descent is the basis for most of the breakthroughs of 20th and 21st century science: Vaccines, advanced surgical techniques, open heart surgery, organ transplants, treatments for diabetes and other hormonal diseases and disorders , effective treatments for some cancers , better prosthesis design, antibiotics , etc etc etc . You want to replace teaching a technique that allows us to actively treat animal and human ills with pseudoscience that is about as relevant to how bodies work as astrology is to astronomy.
In addition we need accurate information about evolution to practice better agriculture. The early Soviet Union refused to do that and millions of their people starved to death
No thanks!!!

jamesbond007 said:

If we believe your statements, then how come there is only natural when the universe and everything in it appears supernatural? For example, we do not see life being created. Natural means life springs forth from natural objects. The video showed an experiment in order to create a single-cell from primordial soup. A single-cell was added and then sacrificed. It's the best environment for it, but yet no single-cell was created outside the cell. No abiogenesis. Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life. No spontaneous generation. Even Miller-Urey to create amino acids wasn't done right and it means no amino acids from lightening and what was there in the early universe. This is not natural according to evolution. The creation of life or origin of life must be supernatural.

We also have mutations and macroevolution. Evolution states the present is the key to the past. We do not see today's monkeys become bipedal. Doesn't that mean that the past monkeys weren't bipedal either? What about protein? You have plenty of amino acids, but they can't form outside the single cell to make proteins. Thus, your natural universe is not working the way it should as claimed under evolution.

Click to expand...

. Your analogies might work if you understand even the bare minimum of basic zoology . As it is, a biologist would look at these ignorant blatherings of yours and would laugh. Monkeys are quadrupeds just like dogs. They don’t normally walk on just their hind legs and they can’t even straighten their elbows fully. Great Apes can do both, some better than others! Humans walk bipedally better than the other apes do and they can treeswing better than we can

jamesbond007 said:

Maybe you need to watch the video. Miller Urey was wrong in what they assumed to be present in the early universe. Amino acids didn't form from lightening. They have experimental proof. Why don't we just say that what you claim happens does not happen? Otherwise, we'd see other evidence to back up what evolution is stating. We had deliberate fraud with Piltdown Man and Haecke's embryo drawings. The fossil evidence backs up creation more than evolution. You cannot make a tailed monkeys into a tailless ones from natural selection, artificial selection, hybridization, nor epigenetics. We have no transitional fossils to show this simple thing happened. Can you even do it with GM? I don't think so or else someone would have done it already. Yet, it happened with evolution and millions of years because of some proto tailed monkey. That proto tailed monkey must've been supernatural because we can't find it in the natural world. I mean I have to LOL at these wild fairy tales of your evolution.

Click to expand...

. Urey Miller’s experiment did show that inorganic molecules can form organic molecules. Since we do find these molecules in space your point is moot. There are tailless monkeys . Monkeys not apes ! Monkeys have their scapulas on the side of their extremely narrow pointed rib cage to assist with quadrupedal walking ( just like a dog) . Apes have a wide flat rib cage with wide shoulders with the scapula on the back (like all humans) to be able to treeswing. Humans can treeswing - gymnasts do it regularly with training and babies can do it naturally.
Piltdown man ? Seriously?!?! A single fake fossil when we have over 400 real ones of just Australopithecus afarensis ( aka Lucy’s species) . And that’s not even mentioning the other 25 or so protohuman fossil species
I’ve already discussed Haeckel’s not currently used drawings so I’m not bothering here

Brightmoon said:

. Modern biological science which includes evolution/common descent is the basis for most of the breakthroughs of 20th and 21st century science: Vaccines, advanced surgical techniques, open heart surgery, organ transplants, treatments for diabetes and other hormonal diseases and disorders , effective treatments for some cancers , better prosthesis design, antibiotics , etc etc etc . You want to replace teaching a technique that allows us to actively treat animal and human ills with pseudoscience that is about as relevant to how bodies work as astrology is to astronomy.
In addition we need accurate information about evolution to practice better agriculture. The early Soviet Union refused to do that and millions of their people starved to death
No thanks!!!

Click to expand...

The inclusion of the theory of evolution in modern biological science has not contributed to advancement in science. Science advances through the scientific methods. Evolution may be assumed by the researcher, but the method stands apart from the assumption. The method, as I stated earlier was developed by Christians, Jews and Muslims who assumed a God of consistency in establishing his laws of nature.

Also, I did not support teaching creation science in the public schools, I support eliminating the public schools all together. I support parents teaching their children creation science.

Furthermore, I know creation science researchers. They follow established scientific methods in formulating their hypotheses in research. The difference is they accept the biblical account of creation. Do you reject what God has to say about he created everything in Genesis? If you do, then I suppose you also pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible.

jamesbond007 said:

No, they can't. They're not fully bipedal. Stop lying. 1 star now.

Click to expand...

They can walk bipedally they just lean forward and take some of the weight on their knuckles . Our spines are S shaped to take the weight of our upper bodies , chimps don’t have that.
As you can see ardipithicus and Australopithecus are in the illustration too. The Illustration is from a Scientific American . I forgot which month buts it’s from 2019

AlexDofTX said:

The inclusion of the theory of evolution in modern biological science has not contributed to advancement in science. Science advances through the scientific methods. Evolution may be assumed by the researcher, but the method stands apart from the assumption. The method, as I stated earlier was developed by Christians, Jews and Muslims who assumed a God of consistency in establishing his laws of nature.

Also, I did not support teaching creation science in the public schools, I support eliminating the public schools all together. I support parents teaching their children creation science.

Furthermore, I know creation science researchers. They follow established scientific methods in formulating their hypotheses in research. The difference is they accept the biblical account of creation. Do you reject what God has to say about he created everything in Genesis? If you do, then I suppose you also pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible.

Click to expand...

. 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.

AlexDofTX said:

The inclusion of the theory of evolution in modern biological science has not contributed to advancement in science. Science advances through the scientific methods. Evolution may be assumed by the researcher, but the method stands apart from the assumption. The method, as I stated earlier was developed by Christians, Jews and Muslims who assumed a God of consistency in establishing his laws of nature.

Also, I did not support teaching creation science in the public schools, I support eliminating the public schools all together. I support parents teaching their children creation science.

Furthermore, I know creation science researchers. They follow established scientific methods in formulating their hypotheses in research. The difference is they accept the biblical account of creation. Do you reject what God has to say about he created everything in Genesis? If you do, then I suppose you also pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible.

Click to expand...

living in a modern first world society the way we do , we can’t afford your type of enforced ignorance. Afghanistan went from a semi modern society back to living as if they were in the 13th century because religious fundamentalism eliminated a modern secular education. You want that in America. The only question is why?

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...