Creationism in School

[mulimulix]

So, this will be a half poll/half discussion thread.

There has been a lot of discussion in the past year or two about teaching creationism in American schools. The way I see it is that it is perfectly fine to teach it in religion, but to teach it in a science class is completely outrageous, as it is simply not a science.

Please give me your thoughts on the topic, whether you are a YEC or OEC and vote in the poll.

 

[drich0150]

Seeing as neither theory has anything more than the believers belief in the evidence provided, one theory should not be held in a higher regard than another. Both should be taught. Why speak in absolutes when none are known absolutely.

 

[mighty2save]

Both creationism, evolution and the big bang are all theories. None is more proven than the other and all most be taught where the other is taught IMO since we want to create well rounded productive members of society. Just teaching one side to something does not create someone who is well rounded but someone who is ignorant. And I say this for both sides Christians must learn about evolution and other theories to better support their own beliefs. And evolutionists should learn creationism to better support and know why they believe what they do.

You cannot truly believe in something until you know WHY you believe it and nothing else.

 

[oi_antz]

Religion class only because it is only pertinent to studies of theology, particularly Abrahamic theology. AFAIK evolution theory is the most reliable means of understanding the biology of this world.

 

[mulimulix]

Both creationism, evolution and the big bang are all theories. None is more proven than the other and all most be taught where the other is taught IMO since we want to create well rounded productive members of society. Just teaching one side to something does not create someone who is well rounded but someone who is ignorant. And I say this for both sides Christians must learn about evolution and other theories to better support their own beliefs. And evolutionists should learn creationism to better support and know why they believe what they do.

You cannot truly believe in something until you know WHY you believe it and nothing else.

As said above, you clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is; and this is an issue. You also must go against your own ideas of learning both sides, because you would know what a scientific theory is if you looked at evolution or other scientific theories.

The fact is that evolution and the big bang are accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists, whereas creationism is not.

 

[John Jay]

So, this will be a half poll/half discussion thread.

There has been a lot of discussion in the past year or two about teaching creationism in American schools. The way I see it is that it is perfectly fine to teach it in religion, but to teach it in a science class is completely outrageous, as it is simply not a science.

So, the idea that the Universe is random and came from nothing is science, but the idea that the Universe is ordered and was created is not?

As said above, you clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is

Why do you feel the need to insult her? Do you feel that insulting her strengthens your argument?

I know that you're going to insult me now, too, for asking you this, but just out of curiousity, do you believe that evolution can be observed and recreated?

The fact is that evolution and the big bang are accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists, whereas creationism is not.

Well, then it must be true! By the way, while you were so busy insulting her, did you stop to look up the definition of argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad verecundiam?

Both of these are logical fallacies that you've just committed.

If your argument is based on logical fallacies, then why should we believe you? Do you have any facts? Or do you just plan to keep appealing to popularity and authority?

 

[seashale76]

We don't have such a thing as religion class in public schools in the United States. We have social studies, which encompasses world geography, world civilizations, and US history. Various religions are briefly touched upon when they come up in the context of a particular unit of study. Creationism is already mentioned in these instances, though briefly, as usually, most students have to be caught up on the basics of Christianity (when it is mentioned) and the common knowledge that everyone expects them to already have, yet don't, has to be partially rectified (as most kids these days in the so-called Bible-Belt are very much unchurched in every way- at least where I live).

Evolution is briefly mentioned in science classes. Back when I was in school it and other theories, such as the Big Bang, were also mentioned (I don't recall creationism mentioned in science class), and life moved on. I did take an entire class regarding evolution as an undergrad though.

My last strongly held position was theistic evolution, but I couldn't care less now.

 

[drich0150]

Perhaps you should reexamine your statement. Focous on the "Theory" portion of it and maybe even look up the definition.

Now if we have established what a "theory" is scientific or not, then we can move on to the second half of my statement. In that if we are not teaching absolutes like Math, then we should be open minded enough to give equal time to all major "theories."

 

[solarwave]

So, the idea that the Universe is random and came from nothing is science, but the idea that the Universe is ordered and was created is not?

Science doesn't really know how the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang theory is science though. Even if creationism is true the universe is random to some extent because of quantum theory. If science is right then large scale objects work by laws and so arn't really random.

Why do you feel the need to insult her? Do you feel that insulting her strengthens your argument?

He didn't insult her. So say someone doesn't understand something when it seems they don't understand it isn't really an insult.

If your argument is based on logical fallacies, then why should we believe you? Do you have any facts? Or do you just plan to keep appealing to popularity and authority?

Although appealing to authority doesn't necessarily prove something it is the scientists who are the experts and who have a better chance of understanding the data than average joe who thinks he knows better because he once read a book on the subject.

Now if we have established what a "theory" is scientific or not, then we can move on to the second half of my statement. In that if we are not teaching absolutes like Math, then we should be open minded enough to give equal time to all major "theories."

We don't do this in most other subjects though. Scientists tell us what the best scientific theories are just as historians tells us what likely happened in the past. Just because people disagree with the experts doesn't make their theory equal in my opinion.

Explaining what creationism is ok, but trying to make it out to be equal in science to evolution isn't.

 

[John Jay]

Science doesn't really know how the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang theory is science though.

And how do you know it's science? Has it ever been observed? Has it ever been reproduced?

He didn't insult her. So say someone doesn't understand something when it seems they don't understand it isn't really an insult.

If you say something in an insulting way with the intent of belittling someone, that's an insult.

Although appealing to authority doesn't necessarily prove something

When does it ever prove anything? You know it's considered a logical fallacy precisely because it doesn't prove anything, right?

 

[solarwave]

And how do you know it's science? Has it ever been observed? Has it ever been reproduced?

What do you mean by observed? See with your eyes? You can't see x-rays but you can see how it affects other things. The background microwave radiation is light from the Big Bang and is as close as we can get to seeing it. The expansion of the universe is also the continuation of it.

It can't be reproduced (though the data for it can be). We can't reproduce stars, but we have a good idea of how they work because the tests done on stars can be reproduced.

If you say something in an insulting way with the intent of belittling someone, that's an insult.

Fair enough.

When does it ever prove anything? You know it's considered a logical fallacy precisely because it doesn't prove anything, right?

It is possible to read up on these things, but it is really only the experts who can claim they really undertstand all the data and what it means. Appealing to what experts think is the only way we can learn alot without having to do everything from scratch ourselves. I am told that slavery was once allowed and I believe this even though I have never seen any evidence of this because I can't research everything in one lifetime.

 

[Cuddles333]

Both creationism, evolution and the big bang are all theories. None is more proven than the other and all most be taught where the other is taught IMO since we want to create well rounded productive members of society. Just teaching one side to something does not create someone who is well rounded but someone who is ignorant. And I say this for both sides Christians must learn about evolution and other theories to better support their own beliefs. And evolutionists should learn creationism to better support and know why they believe what they do.

You cannot truly believe in something until you know WHY you believe it and nothing else.

A theory is an examination of an hypothesis. This is what the Big Bang and Evolution would fall under. Each started out as an hypothesis, then put to scientific data examination, led each to go on to become theories. Neither can be classified as Scientific theories as neither can be scientifically verified.

Creationism is not a hypothesis, so until it is, will not reach the stage of a theory. Right now it is a myth in the scientific community. Though Young Earth Creationists believe the Genesis account to be literal.

 

[drich0150]

We don't do this in most other subjects though. Scientists tell us what the best scientific theories are just as historians tells us what likely happened in the past. Just because people disagree with the experts doesn't make their theory equal in my opinion.

Explaining what creationism is ok, but trying to make it out to be equal in science to evolution isn't.

First To make Creationism equal to what science has provided would say that Creationism is able to pass the same scrutiny or is able to pass the same checks and balances that all scientific information has passed through. As we all know this is not the case. Some even will go so far as to say that science is designed to exclude God in its efforts.

-Or- It is saying that the best educated guess an man can make, carries the same weight or authority as the almighty God.

It all depends on your POV. Bottom line no matter what you believe they are not the same, nor are they equal because they both come from polar opposite ends of the belief spectrum. This does not mean one side should be taught in a more favorable light than another, I am simply saying they both should be taught.

As far as your comparison to the way history is taught I can sight several examples (In an open minded society) When accounts are called into question both accounts are given. It is only when one examines cultures like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia that only one record of events is permitted.

That is why I said if we are not speaking about Verifiable absolutes we should provide all of the most popular information.

 

[Jase]

A theory is an examination of an hypothesis. This is what the Big Bang and Evolution would fall under. Each started out as an hypothesis, then put to scientific data examination, led each to go on to become theories. Neither can be classified as Scientific theories as neither can be scientifically verified.

They can both most certainly be verified. Evolution is extremely well supported. The problem is most people don't understand it, so they make silly claims like, "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys". That is not a valid challenge against evolution. We know less about Gravity (also a theory) and germs (again a theory) than we do evolution.

 

[mulimulix]

So, the idea that the Universe is random and came from nothing is science, but the idea that the Universe is ordered and was created is not?

Would you rather teach what you want to hear or the truth?

Why do you feel the need to insult her? Do you feel that insulting her strengthens your argument?[?QUOTE]

As said below, I did not insult her; I simply stated that she does not understand the very thing she is arguing against.

I know that you're going to insult me now, too, for asking you this, but just out of curiousity, do you believe that evolution can be observed and recreated?

Evolution has been observed in recent years. Since Darwin's time, we have seen new species evolved. I can find examples for you if you would like, but the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution comes from fossils and DNA.

Well, then it must be true! By the way, while you were so busy insulting her, did you stop to look up the definition of argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad verecundiam?

Wow. Yes, I know the argumentum ad populum fallacy and this is completely inapplicable. I accept evolution because A LOT of evidence has been shown to me and I know more exists and not only this, the evidence is reliable. The fact that most scientists accept it too, only suggests that it is a very reliable theory.

Science doesn't really know how the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang theory is science though. Even if creationism is true the universe is random to some extent because of quantum theory. If science is right then large scale objects work by laws and so arn't really random.

Much of the evidence for the Big Bang is too complicated for someone who isn't a physicist/astro-physicist etc. to understand, but there is plenty of things to suggest the universe originated from a single point (Hubble's Law). An analogy is that the Big Bang is a jigsaw puzzle; most of the pieces have been put in place and the final product can be seen, but there are still minor details missing.

Although appealing to authority doesn't necessarily prove something it is the scientists who are the experts and who have a better chance of understanding the data than average joe who thinks he knows better because he once read a book on the subject.

Thank you. By going to a hospital and having an operation, you are trusting science; it is the most reliable way of discovering things in Mankind.

And how do you know it's science? Has it ever been observed? Has it ever been reproduced?

Yes, it is being observed as we speak; the universe is still expanding and has been proven to be doing so for many decades:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[John Jay]

Would you rather teach what you want to hear or the truth?

I don't believe that the idea of the universe just magically appearing out of nothing or fish becoming monkeys becoming men is the truth.

As said below, I did not insult her; I simply stated that she does not understand the very thing she is arguing against.

If your intent was not to insult her, then why did you speak to her in such a demeaning and condescending way?

Evolution has been observed in recent years. Since Darwin's time, we have seen new species evolved. I can find examples for you if you would like

Examples, please.

Wow. Yes, I know the argumentum ad populum fallacy

Then why did you use it?

The fact that most scientists accept it too, only suggests that it is a very reliable theory.

Again, argumentum ad populum/ad verecundiam. Again, it doesn't not matter who believes something or how many of them believe it. That is not evidence nor a sign of truth.

Much of the evidence for the Big Bang is too complicated for someone who isn't a physicist/astro-physicist etc.

Well, that's a nice cop-out. Why don't you use that big ol' brain of yours to try to explain it to us lil' ol' mortals?

Yes, it is being observed as we speak

OK. So how is something that happened billions of years ago, according to you, being observed now? How is it being recreated under laboratory conditions?

You can't see x-rays but you can see how it affects other things.

The difference is that x rays are occurring now and can be observed.

The background microwave radiation is light from the Big Bang and is as close as we can get to seeing it.

How do you know it's from the Big Bang?

The expansion of the universe is also the continuation of it.

It can't be reproduced

I see. So then that removes experiment and evaluation, a critical step in the scientific method.

It is possible to read up on these things, but it is really only the experts who can claim they really undertstand all the data and what it means.

Why is that?

Appealing to what experts think is the only way we can learn alot without having to do everything from scratch ourselves.

You didn't appeal to experts to learn from them. You appealed to experts as evidence that your claims are true, which is argumentum ad verecundiam, a logical fallacy which any expert in the field of science will tell you is not evidence for the truthfulness of a claim.

 

[solarwave]

It all depends on your POV. Bottom line no matter what you believe they are not the same, nor are they equal because they both come from polar opposite ends of the belief spectrum. This does not mean one side should be taught in a more favorable light than another, I am simply saying they both should be taught.

I don't mind it being taught in a religion class (but apparently you don't have them in the US?) but it isn't science, few scientists agree with it and so shouldn't be taught in a science class.

As far as your comparison to the way history is taught I can sight several examples (In an open minded society) When accounts are called into question both accounts are given. It is only when one examines cultures like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia that only one record of events is permitted.

Are these examples of historians disagreeing?

That is why I said if we are not speaking about Verifiable absolutes we should provide all of the most popular information.

How much must something be verifiable before someone can be taught what is most likely true, rather than letting people pick what sounds good?

 

[solarwave]

The difference is that x rays are occurring now and can be observed.

Technically we can only see the after affect of them wouldn't you say?

How do you know it's from the Big Bang?

I havn't read about it for a while, but from what I can remember it is light that comes from every direction with equal energy as would be expected from the Big Bang

I see. So then that removes experiment and evaluation, a critical step in the scientific method.

But the evidence for the Big Bang can tested again and again.

Why is that?

Well if you pretty much did a degree or PhD in the subject but didn't become a scientist then it could be said you understand it. Reading a few books on how space shuttles work doesn't mean you actually understand how to make a space shuttle. Just like if you read a few books on science you can understand a good amount, but not the detailed knowledge of the basic data, equations, and full detailed knowledge of laws and theories.

You didn't appeal to experts to learn from them. You appealed to experts as evidence that your claims are true, which is argumentum ad verecundiam, a logical fallacy which any expert in the field of science will tell you is not evidence for the truthfulness of a claim.

You see the point I am trying to make though? I'll rephrase what I am saying: We should accept evolution because pretty much all experts on it do. That isn't a logical fallacy.

 

[John Jay]

Technically we can only see the after affect of them wouldn't you say?

No.

I havn't read about it for a while, but from what I can remember it is light that comes from every direction with equal energy as would be expected from the Big Bang

So then, your evidence is that somebody said so.

But the evidence for the Big Bang can tested again and again.

No, because you have no way of knowing that it was from the big bang.

Well if you pretty much did a degree or PhD in the subject but didn't become a scientist then it could be said you understand it.

Why? Are non-scientists really that stupid?

Do you have a PhD?

Reading a few books on how space shuttles work doesn't mean you actually understand how to make a space shuttle.

And yet, when I asked you how you know what you know about the Big Bang, you said you read it somewhere.

Just like if you read a few books on science you can understand a good amount, but not the detailed knowledge of the basic data, equations, and full detailed knowledge of laws and theories.

Why not?

You see the point I am trying to make though?

Apparently, your point is that we should believe something because other people believe it.

I'll rephrase what I am saying: We should accept evolution because pretty much all experts on it do. That isn't a logical fallacy.

Actually, it is. It's a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam.

What happens if I can find more "experts" who believe in Creationism? Does that then mean that evolution is false?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Evolution is science.

Creationism is not.

Creationism does not belong in a science class.