Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law.
Actually, just like gravity, evolution is both a theory and a law. The law of evolution is that Allele frequencies in a population change over generations. The theory explains how and why, and the outcome of these accumulated changes.
In science, the terms Theory and law have a very specific meaning, which a great many creationists dont understand. This is not their fault, as the school system in most western countries does not teach the correct scientific terminology, or even the correct version of the scientific method. These tend to be taught at college or university level.
Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
Because this wouldnt be true, the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life.
According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism.
This is not true. Most Christian sects do not advocate creationism at all, they advocate theistic evolution. The catholic church considers creationism to be heresy, the Anglican church accepts evolution as the mechanism of Gods plan, so does united reform, so do the Methodists and so on.
Creationism is most prominent amongst provincial Christian sects, many of which do not accept the creed of Nicea, and so are not considered to be Christian sects at all by many of the larger denominations. (Mormonism for example).
A quick glance around this forum at the faith icons of the posters will show you that a great many of us are Christians who accept evolution as Gods mechanism for creating biodiversity, because most modern Christians do.
In addition to that, there's other religions that believe in creationism, but don't fall in to the Christian category. On the other hand, only 4% of the US is no religion, meaning that they're atheists.
An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. Just because the majority believe a thing, does not make it so. Besides which, Im afraid its not true to say the majority believe in creationism. Most Christian denominations accept evolution, so do the jews, who have a much greater claim on Genesis as their book than we Christians do.
If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools?
As I mentioned above, it is not true that 78.5% of Americans believe in creationism. They may be Christians, but most Christians reject creationism in favour of theistic evolution. So how can it be argued that a minority belief, rejected by most Christians, should be taught in schools as if it was the Christian belief?
Having said that, I have no problem with teaching creationism in schools, so long as it is in comparative religion lessons and all the books are marked with a sticker which reads;- Creationism is a theological belief, held by certain minority sects within the Christian religion but rejected by the major Christian sects, this material should be approached with an open mind.
I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.
Creationism is not the most widely believed explanation of how life began, unless you are conflating creationism with theism, which is a grave mistake.
. Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance.
No one believes life happened by chance. Abiogensis (which is a distinct theory from that of evolution, I really do wish you would at least take that from this discussion) argues that life arose from chemistry. There is nothing chance or random about chemistry, if there was, tehn we would not put sugar in our tea, becase we would not know what the outcome would be.
And if evolution requires faith, doesn't that mean that it's a religion, though it's one that does not believe in a god?
Evolution does not require faith, just because AIG say it does, does not make the statement true. Acceptance of evolution stems from the evidence that god left in his creation. Rejecting this evidence on the grounds of a literal reading of a Jewish text which the Jews do not read literally is why Creationism is held as heresy by the Catholic church. More precisely it is considered Biblical Idolatry.
Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism.
The difference is, that eh evidence for evolution has withstood all attempts to falsify it,, whilst the evidence for literal creationism has been debunked, sometimes by people who set out to try and support it.
Both require some believing without seeing, since no one alive today witnessed Earth's creation.
Speaking as a criminologist, you do not need to see an event to know it happened. All events leave behind evidence, and you only need to test the evidence to learn what the event was that left it. When we find a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and no powder burns on the hands, we do not conclude that death was from natural causes!
And if they're both theories, why can't they both be taught in schools?
They are not both theories. A theory is a collection of statements which explain the details of a law. Creationism is an attempt to justify a literal interpretation of genesis.
If only evolution is taught, the schools are promoting one religion other all others, the religion of atheism.
Evolution does not equal atheism, if it did, then it would hardly be accepted by both Catholicism and Anglicanism.
What is more, whatever Richard lost the plot a bit Dawkins claims, science is not atheistic, it is agnostic.
Ghost