Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[jamesbond007]

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.

 

[miamited]

Hi JB,

While I personally believe that both sides should have their place in education, I don't expect it to be so. The problem is that teaching the Scriptural account of creation means that you also have to teach that there is a God who created us and is watching over us. Such an understanding is not going to be allowed in our public schools under the current conditions of mankind's rebellion against God.

So, for me, because I do believe in a YEC model that explains our current existence, it is something that I will teach my children in keeping with God's command that I do so. However, that's because I am a believer. Sadly, not even among believers can we find agreement in this and so there's just no chance that when we include all those of the lost and dying that we're going to find any such agreement.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I'm a theistic evolutionist, myself, and I think that creation science promotes a number of fallacies that do put those who hold to it at a disadvantage. However, I'm also very libertarian, so I believe it is wrong to tax other people in order to propagate beliefs that they disagree with. When you really get down to it, we shouldn't have compulsory public school at all. However, since we have it, if creationists are paying for biology class, biology class should at least partially represent their side of the argument in a sympathetic light. Neither side convinces anyone by forcing them to swallow opposing beliefs.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

I grew up in a different era. Evolution was taught side by side with Creation. I was able to make up my own mind. My atheist father tried to convince me evolution was true, without success. I was not a believer and I detested church. I did believe that God was out there somewhere. Even in our modern, godless society, a lot of people believe that God is real. Steven Meyer has a great response to the "science v Creationism" debate. One of the biggest problems is the definition of science itself. We need to teach Creation. By all means teach evolution. Let the listener decide. It won't happen. It's the same reason that dissent is ruthlessly suppressed in dictatorships. If ever the truth gets out, the regime is finished. There is too much money, prestige and job security at stake. Never get between a scientist and his grant....

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm a theistic evolutionist, myself, and I think that creation science promotes a number of fallacies that do put those who hold to it at a disadvantage. However, I'm also very libertarian, so I believe it is wrong to tax other people in order to propagate beliefs that they disagree with. When you really get down to it, we shouldn't have compulsory public school at all. However, since we have it, if creationists are paying for biology class, biology class should at least partially represent their side of the argument in a sympathetic light. Neither side convinces anyone by forcing them to swallow opposing beliefs.

Nicely put.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the gospel we should preach is Jesus, and not creation science. This is one of the problems I have with creation science ministries. While I do not disagree with Young Earth Creation, the problem I have with these creation ministries is that they do not always mention Jesus; It is not the primary message that they preach. So I don't think Christians should try to push creation science in schools by the law. Our way is to preach the gospel, and God will change their heart to know the truth about the creation. If a person is born again by the water (Scripture), and the Spirit, their eyes will be enlightened to the path God wants them to go if they continue to abide in Him, and they will study His Word (the Bible) to show themselves approved unto God.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Science isn't really fit for determining one-time events. Even if they could find processes that "explain" the final outcome, they would necessarily be contrived, stretched to fit. This kind of outcome is a non-repeating thing, and it's unique enough to not be understood through similar examples. There are no similar examples. Science demands repeatability, and there is none.

The extent that we can study with science is to determine whether things have design and purpose, or chaos and disorder. The answer to that question is obvious. How we got there is a question not genuinely answerable by science. Any attempt to use science to answer this philosophical question tends to butcher both philosophy and science.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I believe the gospel we should preach is Jesus, and not creation science. This is one of the problems I have with creation science ministries. While I do not disagree with Young Earth Creation, the problem I have with these creation ministries is that they do not always mention Jesus; It is not the primary message that they preach. So I don't think Christians should try to push creation science in schools by the law. Our way is to preach the gospel, and God will change their heart to know the truth about the creation. If a person is born again by the water (Scripture), and the Spirit, their eyes will be enlightened to the path God wants them to go if they continue to abide in Him, and they will study His Word (the Bible) to show themselves approved unto God.

Yes, I agree with you except for one thing. When we preach the gospel to those blinded by science, it is much harder to cut through the doubt and unbelief. Not impossible, just more difficult. Creation should not be taught as science, neither should evolution. When I was at school in the 50's and 60's, evolution was presented as a theory alongside Creation. What have evolutionists got to fear? Why do they care that people don't believe in evolution?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

How we got there is a question not genuinely answerable by science. Any attempt to use science to answer this philosophical question tends to butcher both philosophy and science.

I don't know that I agree in every sense of what you're saying. If we're talking, "Why is there something rather than nothing, and why does it follow rules?" then certainly that's unanswerable by science. But if we're talking, "What processes led to circumstances as they currently stand?" then I think science has answers that lie somewhere in the realm of certainty between pure philosophy and truly exact science. To be sure, atheist evolutionists often conveniently conceal from view the fact that much of what they describe is not directly observable and they have to suppose hypothetical entities and processes. But the theory of evolution is nevertheless based on more than purely rational speculation; empirical evidence does bear upon it, only not as strongly.

What have evolutionists got to fear? Why do they care that people don't believe in evolution?

A very good question. My answer: Most atheists are realists rather than pragmatists. It actually matters to them whether electrons really do exist, rather than whether electrons are just a convenient fiction that allow us to solve practical problems. Myself, I'm more of a pragmatist. I really only care about evolution insofar as it helps me solve my personal objectives, which often involve helping other people solve their own personal objectives. Evolution has important insights into heterosexual attraction and vaccination. But the vast majority of people don't need these or other insights. So why should I force them to learn it? But if you're a realist, you have to take the view that personal objectives are irrelevant to the truth. The truth is the truth, no matter what someone wants. And so a realist is more open to forcing his views on others, because that's what the real world effectively does to himself.

Moreover, most atheists have a very limited view of separation of church and state. They can very easily see that having their tax dollars pay for the propagation of creationism is wrong. But because they fixate on the First-Amendment language of "establishment of religion" and ignore the Jeffersonian arguments that helped inform the First Amendment, they don't easily see that taxing creationists to pay for the propagation of evolutionary theory violates the intended spirit of the First Amendment.

 

[miamited]

I believe the gospel we should preach is Jesus, and not creation science. This is one of the problems I have with creation science ministries. While I do not disagree with Young Earth Creation, the problem I have with these creation ministries is that they do not always mention Jesus; It is not the primary message that they preach. So I don't think Christians should try to push creation science in schools by the law. Our way is to preach the gospel, and God will change their heart to know the truth about the creation. If a person is born again by the water (Scripture), and the Spirit, their eyes will be enlightened to the path God wants them to go if they continue to abide in Him, and they will study His Word (the Bible) to show themselves approved unto God.

Hi BH,

I agree with you. When preaching the gospel, we should teach only about the truth of Jesus. However, when we measure the length and breadth of the Scriptures, God seems to have expended quite a bit of energy and time explaining to us a lot more than 'just Jesus'. I believe that if God felt that all we needed to know was Jesus, He could have saved the Jews a lot of writing.

So, we have two issues at play here. Preaching the gospel to the lost and studying to show oneself approved. However, in this issue of teaching the 'how and why and when' we all have come to be living upon the earth now in the year 2019, should we allow, without comment, that our education system would teach impressionable young minds something that some of us believe to not be the truth?

What if: God did create this realm of existence just as he has told us and then repeatedly and continually throughout His Scriptures asks us to believe Him. He told the Israelites to teach their children all about Him. He asked that they talk about Him to their children when the rise up and when they lie down and as they walk along the pathways. He asked them to write these things on their doorposts and lentils. To bind them to their foreheads. Do you believe that all He wanted the generations of Jews to believe is that Jesus is?

What if: When God asks us to believe Him, that He means in all things that He has taken the time to be written down to us from Him?

I believe that one of the greatest reasons that we lose a lot of children who are started in the faith as young children, is the teaching of the lost world. This becomes ever more expansive as children go from elementary, through high school and then on to college. Some research shows that the greatest number of young minds turn away from the faith in college because that is where we teach them to believe only what they can prove. Faith in God is not one of those provable hypothesis. In fact, God's own Scriptures instruct us that true faith in Him comes from those who are willing to believe in things that cannot be seen. Sometimes true faith in God just asks us to believe what He has written to us.

Example: Jesus was born of a virgin according to the Scriptures. But for young people going through college, that becomes an impossible thing to believe. We have literally thousands upon thousands of years of evidence that the only way that a woman becomes pregnant is through sexual relations with a man. In olden days it was done the old fashioned way, while today we can start the process in a test tube. However, it still today, requires the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man to create a child. God asks us to believe that in the case of Jesus' birth, and the creation of Adam and Eve, that this was not how they were created.

So, my question is simple. What does it mean, in God's eyes, when He asks us to believe Him? I'm not really interested in what we, mere sinful and often wrong human beings, believe that it means to believe God. When God asks us to believe Him, is He referring to everything that He has told us?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, I agree with you except for one thing. When we preach the gospel to those blinded by science, it is much harder to cut through the doubt and unbelief. Not impossible, just more difficult. Creation should not be taught as science, neither should evolution. When I was at school in the 50's and 60's, evolution was presented as a theory alongside Creation. What have evolutionists got to fear? Why do they care that people don't believe in evolution?

What we may think are as limitations, are not limitations for God. With God, nothing is impossible. I believe God can soften the heart in different ways. I am an example. I grew up in a liberal Christian home. I knew about Jesus, but I had no clue in who He really was. I was taught to just pray to God as a child. Then in my teenage years, a Science teacher (who looked like a football player) influenced me in class to believe in Evolution. So seeing Evolution was true to me at the time, I became an atheist. Once I declared I believed in Evolution, and I was an atheist, it seemed like Christians came out of the woodwork to convince me otherwise. But later in my teen years, God softened my heart by love. Whenever I had a crush on certain women, they coincidentally turned out to be Christian. This happened two times for me in a row until I came across a comic book tract called "This Was Your Life."

I think in the back of my mind, that the feelings I had for these women can only be true if God existed. There were also coincidences involved in my life, as well (that I could not explain). Again, this pointed to a creator God in my life ever so subtly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi BH,

I agree with you. When preaching the gospel, we should teach only about the truth of Jesus. However, when we measure the length and breadth of the Scriptures, God seems to have expended quite a bit of energy and time explaining to us a lot more than 'just Jesus'. I believe that if God felt that all we needed to know was Jesus, He could have saved the Jews a lot of writing.

So, we have two issues at play here. Preaching the gospel to the lost and studying to show oneself approved. However, in this issue of teaching the 'how and why and when' we all have come to be living upon the earth now in the year 2019, should we allow, without comment, that our education system would teach impressionable young minds something that some of us believe to not be the truth?

What if: God did create this realm of existence just as he has told us and then repeatedly and continually throughout His Scriptures asks us to believe Him. He told the Israelites to teach their children all about Him. He asked that they talk about Him to their children when the rise up and when they lie down and as they walk along the pathways. He asked them to write these things on their doorposts and lentils. To bind them to their foreheads. Do you believe that all He wanted the generations of Jews to believe is that Jesus is?

What if: When God asks us to believe Him, that He means in all things that He has taken the time to be written down to us from Him?

I believe that one of the greatest reasons that we lose a lot of children who are started in the faith as young children, is the teaching of the lost world. This becomes ever more expansive as children go from elementary, through high school and then on to college. Some research shows that the greatest number of young minds turn away from the faith in college because that is where we teach them to believe only what they can prove. Faith in God is not one of those provable hypothesis. In fact, God's own Scriptures instruct us that true faith in Him comes from those who are willing to believe in things that cannot be seen. Sometimes true faith in God just asks us to believe what He has written to us.

Example: Jesus was born of a virgin according to the Scriptures. But for young people going through college, that becomes an impossible thing to believe. We have literally thousands upon thousands of years of evidence that the only way that a woman becomes pregnant is through sexual relations with a man. In olden days it was done the old fashioned way, while today we can start the process in a test tube. However, it still today, requires the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man to create a child. God asks us to believe that in the case of Jesus' birth, and the creation of Adam and Eve, that this was not how they were created.

So, my question is simple. What does it mean, in God's eyes, when He asks us to believe Him? I'm not really interested in what we, mere sinful and often wrong human beings, believe that it means to believe God. When God asks us to believe Him, is He referring to everything that He has told us?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

While there are lessons and truths that God wants us to know in His Word (like where we come from, etc.), the ultimate truth is Jesus Christ.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39).​

To give you an example of this: God showed me one day in the creation account of how it points to Jesus.

Finger Prints of the Greatest Love Story Ever Told!

In the opening of God's love letter to man, God lets us know that He created all things in six days and stops from all His work on the seventh and blesses it. However, what you may not know, is that God had also secretly told us about the greatest love story of all in the beginning of His Word, too.

1. Day One of Creation:
God brings forth Light.
In the New Testament, Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:14) who is the light of all men whose light shineth out darkness (John 1:4-5). For He is the light of the world (John 8:12).

2. Day Two of Creation:
God separates the Water & creates the firmament or Heavens in-between them.
In the New Testament, Jesus is baptized in water and then the Heavens open up, which begins His ministry (Matthew 3:16). Jesus is our firmament or Heaven (i.e. bridge or stairway) between that which is Heavenly above and that which is Earthy below. For Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

3. Day Three of Creation:
Dry land (including rock) appears and vegetation such as trees come forth.
In the New Testament, Jesus is the rock of our salvation (1 Corinthians 10:4) who is crucified upon a wooden cross or tree for our sins or transgressions against Him (Acts 5:30).

4. Day Four of Creation:
After three days pass by, the sun, the moon, and the stars are raised up into the sky.
In the New Testament, on the third day, Jesus who is the Son of God or the Sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) (Revelation 1:16) rises from the grave (Matthew 28:5-6), ascends to the Father up in Heaven (John 20:17) enters the Holy place, and obtains eternal redemption for us (Hebrews 9:12).

5. Day Five of Creation:
God creates marine life and the fowl of the air.
In the New Testament, Jesus is the fisher of men (Matthew 4:19) (John 21:4-8) who returns to be with his disciples for 40 days, greeting them with a meal of fish, and then leaving them back up into Heaven again like a bird going up into the sky (Acts of the Apostles 1:9-10) (Psalms 91:4).

6. Day Six of Creation:
God creates animals and man.
In the New Testament, thru Christ's redemptive work of his death and resurrection, the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19).

7. Day Seven - After Creation:
God stops from his work, and blesses it as a weekly Sabbath rest for man.
In the New Testament, Jesus can forgive of us of our sins (1 John 2:1-2) and give us an eternal rest and Sabbath for all eternity if we choose to accept it (Matthew 11:28) (Hebrews 4:8-11). Thus restoring a broken relationship between God and man so that we may walk with Him in the light (1 John 1:7) and so that He may give us love and peace (Ephesians 3:17) (John 14:27).

This is the greatest love story ever told. Jesus, who was God Almighty in the flesh knew before the beginning of creation itself that we would sin against Him. So He came down into the flesh of a man to pay the price for our sins against Him. He died so that we could have life and so that we could have a loving and glorious fellowship with Him that is unlike any other. That is how much God loves us; And it is hidden for us to discover like a secret love letter or loving finger print right in the very beginning of Genesis.

 

[miamited]

Hi BH,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:
This is the greatest love story ever told. Jesus, who was God Almighty in the flesh knew before the beginning of creation itself that we would sin against Him. So He came down into the flesh of a man to pay the price for our sins against Him. He died so that we could have life and so that we could have a loving and glorious fellowship with Him that is unlike any other. That is how much God loves us; And it is hidden for us to discover like a secret love letter or loving finger print right in the very beginning of Genesis.

No disagreement with me there. So, it is your understanding that the only thing we need, I'm saying need as according to what God is looking for, is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What else do we 'need' to believe for our names to be found in the Lamb's Book of Life, according to your understanding?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[jamesbond007]

I grew up in a different era. Evolution was taught side by side with Creation. I was able to make up my own mind. My atheist father tried to convince me evolution was true, without success. I was not a believer and I detested church. I did believe that God was out there somewhere. Even in our modern, godless society, a lot of people believe that God is real. Steven Meyer has a great response to the "science v Creationism" debate. One of the biggest problems is the definition of science itself. We need to teach Creation. By all means teach evolution. Let the listener decide. It won't happen. It's the same reason that dissent is ruthlessly suppressed in dictatorships. If ever the truth gets out, the regime is finished. There is too much money, prestige and job security at stake. Never get between a scientist and his grant....

We are probably from different eras, as I am old now, but not that old. I wasn't taught evolution, but it was referred to and I learned it from Understanding Evolution where I went to school. I believed in ToE, but didn't think it necessarily had to do with God. One is science and the other religion, right? Later, I learned about evolutionary thinking and history and started to compare with creation as per the Bible. I couldn't get past all the begots and the list of how long people lived. I also didn't understand God killing Caananites and homosexuality was a sin. Thus, I just avoided the people parts that confused me and read the Genesis parts. One of the things I discovered was the past was different from the present. In contradiction to that, evolutionary thinking teaches uniformitarianism and that the present is the key to the past. It had to be one or the other. You can't have both, so one has to choose who makes the best argument using science and the scientific method, facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

 

[jamesbond007]

While I personally believe that both sides should have their place in education, I don't expect it to be so. The problem is that teaching the Scriptural account of creation means that you also have to teach that there is a God who created us and is watching over us. Such an understanding is not going to be allowed in our public schools under the current conditions of mankind's rebellion against God.

So, for me, because I do believe in a YEC model that explains our current existence, it is something that I will teach my children in keeping with God's command that I do so. However, that's because I am a believer. Sadly, not even among believers can we find agreement in this and so there's just no chance that when we include all those of the lost and dying that we're going to find any such agreement.

I do agree that it is very difficult to penetrate creation science in colleges and universities.

I couldn't find a neat summation of what creation science is from ICR, AIG, creation.com, and other creation science websites. They delve into details and the differing arguments between creation vs. evolution.

Since creationists have been systematically eliminated from participating in peer reviews and the Bible tossed by the wayside, these people have had to do their own peer reviews and only have their websites to promote their views. They have been fighting to get creation back in schools since the 1850s, when uniformitarianism and Darwinism arose, but they lost the battle, as we know. Today, the creation scientists, YEC, and Bible theory side has baraminology which is supported by one college, Bryan College at Dayton. If one goes to these baraminology websites, they delve into the details so I could not readily find what the status of their curriculum is. I did find a summation from the NCSE site which is a non-profit group for the evolutionists. Yet, they provide a good overall summation of where things lie with baraminology -- Baraminology. Aside from that, I'm not sure what kind of curriculum creation science has developed. They have the websites, but have not been able to penetrate Encyclopedia Britannica, whom I think it fairly neutral, and presents both sides nor the colleges and universities.

Creation
creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

Creation myth
Creation myth

 

[jamesbond007]

I'm a theistic evolutionist, myself, and I think that creation science promotes a number of fallacies that do put those who hold to it at a disadvantage. However, I'm also very libertarian, so I believe it is wrong to tax other people in order to propagate beliefs that they disagree with. When you really get down to it, we shouldn't have compulsory public school at all. However, since we have it, if creationists are paying for biology class, biology class should at least partially represent their side of the argument in a sympathetic light. Neither side convinces anyone by forcing them to swallow opposing beliefs.

Thanks. That's an interesting libertarian view and taxes I didn't think of. Biology refers to Theory of Evolution and there is no argument when it comes to natural selection, artificial selection, hybrid breeding, and epigenetics. They are all variations within a species or microevolution. I think we all agree on it. Where the big differences occur is with macroevolution, i.e. humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Also, the tree of life and common ancestor. The rest of the differences come with study of origins, the universe, Earth, and everything else in it that ToE doesn't cover.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi BH,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:
This is the greatest love story ever told. Jesus, who was God Almighty in the flesh knew before the beginning of creation itself that we would sin against Him. So He came down into the flesh of a man to pay the price for our sins against Him. He died so that we could have life and so that we could have a loving and glorious fellowship with Him that is unlike any other. That is how much God loves us; And it is hidden for us to discover like a secret love letter or loving finger print right in the very beginning of Genesis.

No disagreement with me there. So, it is your understanding that the only thing we need, I'm saying need as according to what God is looking for, is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What else do we 'need' to believe for our names to be found in the Lamb's Book of Life, according to your understanding?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

After we are saved by God's grace, we also need to believe in those Scriptures that tell us to enter into the Sanctification Process (i.e. to live holy) as a part of the salvation process. When I say believe, we need to act on that belief. For true faith always shows itself to be true by works (James 2:18). We are saved both in Justification (i.e. believing the gospel, and accepting Christ as our Savior, and seeking forgiveness with Him), and in Sanctification (i.e. living holy by the power of the Spirit). Christians cannot think that they can commit grievous sin on some level with the thinking they are saved. It doesn't work like that. A belief alone in Jesus does not save for the kind of believer who lives out his faith. If they lie, they have to confess and forsake such a sin (1 John 1:9) (1 John 1:7) (Proverbs 28:13). They cannot justify sin. For all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). For without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

 

[Rubiks]

No. Creationists can't even decide on how creation happened. The scientific method is useless here, and all they have to go by is a single page of Bible verses.

 

[jamesbond007]

I believe the gospel we should preach is Jesus, and not creation science. This is one of the problems I have with creation science ministries. While I do not disagree with Young Earth Creation, the problem I have with these creation ministries is that they do not always mention Jesus; It is not the primary message that they preach. So I don't think Christians should try to push creation science in schools by the law. Our way is to preach the gospel, and God will change their heart to know the truth about the creation. If a person is born again by the water (Scripture), and the Spirit, their eyes will be enlightened to the path God wants them to go if they continue to abide in Him, and they will study His Word (the Bible) to show themselves approved unto God.

I couldn't help comment on this as this is not what I talked about in the OP. You should read the links provided and watch the video. My argument is for getting back into the public schools through a science curriculum.

I may be wrong and you did read and watch the video, as they're not about religion and Jesus. I think the latter is of utmost important, but belongs to another forum and not in this forum.

 

[public hermit]

I am a theist and I am a Christian. I believe that God created all that is created, and did it by God's Word. I do not believe creationism or "creation science" should be taught in science classes. I am pretty certain that to compare the theory of evolution and the creation account Genesis is to make a category mistake. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory based on a body of evidence with certain assumptions about the natural world. Creation is a doctrine given by revelation in our scriptures. These are two very different things and should not be pitted against each other.

As a theist I have questions about some of the assumptions behind evolution. In particular, I think the supposed mechanism of unguided natural selection is more of a philosophical statement than a scientific one. So, I think it's important to point out the naturalistic assumptions embedded within the theory of evolution. Nonetheless, there is a body of evidence used to support the theory in general (so, even if we reject the mechanism, we still have a body of evidence to contend with). Science, as we all learned, depends on quantification and observation. There is no way to observe or quantify a Creator. So, "creation science" has no place in science classes. All that being said, I do think most people would profit from considering this particular debate (evolution and creation). I suggest that we start teaching philosophy in schools: logic, ethics, social and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. Students can then consider the evolution/creation debate as part of studying philosophy of religion. And, the upside of considering this debate in the philosophy class is the philosophical assumptions behind the theory of evolution are more apt to be discussed instead of simply assumed (as they are in science classes).

Most important: I believe we have done a huge disservice to our Christian-raised children by teaching them the false dichotomy of having to choose either evolution or creation. They are often taught by Christian leaders/parents that it can only be one or the other. Then when they receive their education, and are faced with the evidence for evolution, they feel they must choose one or the other. Unfortunately, they usually don't have the philosophical background to see there are other choices, or to see they have been handed a false dichotomy. So, what happens? They feel compelled by the evidence and feel they must reject creation. How many children have turned their back on the faith because they assumed there were no other options than to reject one or the other? This category mistake has had real-world/real-spiritual consequences. It is so unnecessary.