Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

Abraxos · Aug 29, 2019

jamesbond007 said:
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.

Why not just show the kids the theory of evolution including all the problems with it?

Teaching them a young earth creationists biblical interpretation should stay in the church.

JacksBratt · Aug 30, 2019

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

Blasphemy? Seriously? That term is usually used in this context:

Definition of blasphemy

1a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God accused of blasphemy

b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy— John Bright †1889

I hardly think that creation as YEC believe could be considered "blaspheming" as it is actually in total agreement with:
1/What God is capable of.
2/ What God told us that He did.

If some guy, a created being of the creator, looks around this earth and concludes some other view.. I think I will take the words of the one who created, over the words of one who was created.

There are a lot of things, in science, that were once held as dear as your view... and later, were found to be impossible due to some new knowledge gained...

This is the exact case with Darwinian view... He had no idea of the complexity of every living cell, DNA or the vast amount of information and it's complexity..

From there, it's a down hill slide that morphs into a free fall.

I was at Joggin's Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia.

There are layers of strata that are supposed to represent millions of years. Yet, there are trees right up through these layers..

These tress stand as exclamation points, of God, to prove that these layers were all formed while a tree was standing there..

Hardly millions of years.

Shrewd Manager · Aug 30, 2019

jamesbond007 said:
It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.

Summary of true Biblical earth creation science here folks!

JacksBratt · Aug 30, 2019

Shrewd Manager said:
Summary of true Biblical earth creation science here folks!

I believe that there is a lot of scientific truth and it is applied to our lives.. I also believe that there is a growing amount of pseudo science that is portrayed to be truth, taught as truth and defended as such... while being totally untrue.

Shrewd Manager · Aug 30, 2019

JacksBratt said:
I believe that there is a lot of scientific truth and it is applied to our lives.. I also believe that there is a growing amount of pseudo science that is portrayed to be truth, taught as truth and defended as such... while being totally untrue.

Indeed, test the spirits. Scientism is false Babylon sorcery, and often indicated by the introductory words "Scientists have discovered that..." Magicians in white lab coats.

There are just so many examples of mainstream science fraud across all disciplines it tends to be the rule rather than the exception. Plenty of examples in the vid, of 'removing one of truth's protective layers' as Neil Armstrong cryptically put it.

And it doesn't require a lot of research to uncover in many cases, the pattern emerges.

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Shrewd Manager said:
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.

Jesus is Lord. The Bible teaches us many things of science even though it's not a science book. We find science backs up the Bible. That said, it does not teach us the shape of the Earth.

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Abraxos said:
Why not just show the kids the theory of evolution including all the problems with it?

Teaching them a young earth creationists biblical interpretation should stay in the church.

It's not just ToE, but evolutionary thinking and history. It goes back to ancient times. I used to believe in evolution until around 2011. Some things didn't add up like mutations, tree of life, common ancestor, Lucy, and so on. I became Christian in 2012 and ended up comparing evolution vs. creation. Before I could I had to get past the parts that confused me and all new converts like the people parts (God orders his people to kill all the Caananites including women, children, and babies), scientific parts like people living to long ages, and all the begots.

YEC can be taught without the religious parts. Basically, YEC is comprised of the first two books (chapters) of Genesis. If two perfect humans procreated from the time period of Noah's Flood, i.e. Noah's family, then it would match today's population.

Hawkins · Aug 30, 2019

Both sides represent a possibility which is unconfirmable in terms of strict science.

Science demand repeatability simply because we humans (more precisely our brain) will have to rely on predictability to determine a truth. Humans cannot possibly know the future. If a theory can predict the future precisely, our brain thus will know for sure (beyond doubt) that the theory is holding a truth. Both ToE and ID are thus not strict science behaving in this manner. Both cannot be confirmed (in the end by a human brain) by the predictability of the theory itself.

We can predict that 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, that is, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. Given water we can any time predict and reproduce this result for our brain to confirm its truth.

We can't predict that single cell organism + natural selection = a human. Given a single cell organism, we can't any time predict and reproduce this result for our brain to confirm its truth.

So whether ID or ToE being taught is much less important than the clarification that ToE is not a strict science. At this stage of human research, it's a study of history assisted by scientific methods. It's not a theory of repeatability and predictability as a strict science is. It cannot be confirmed as a strict science can. Not only the ToE and ID, but also BBT fall into this category due to the absence of repeatability and predictability (i.e., we can't make a big bang repeat itself indefinitely as we can to the dissolving of water into hydrogen and oxygen).

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Brightmoon said:
Urey Miller only found evidence of amino acids and other organic chemicals coming from inorganic precursor molecules

You didn't watch the video. Seriously, you're a biologist and would lay some articles from Nature and Science on me as well as articles from scientific journals. I would have to spend some time to read and understand them, but you would not read a simple ICR papers and watch a 1-hr vid. This goes to show your bias and indoctrination of the pseudoscience of evolution.

Brightmoon said:
MACROEVOLUTION IS SPECIATION

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

At least, you are using macro and microevolution. Those are evolution terms, not creationist ones.

Brightmoon said:
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.

Again, not fully. Can you show in experiment? You cannot use natural selection, artificial selection, hybridization, epigenetics, or even GM (horrors) to create a fully bipedal monkey. It can't be done. They won't survive even if some poor animal was able to survive. We can't even get past tailed to tailless monkeys as common ancestors theory proclaims.

ETA: Possibly, bears can be fully bipedal. We had an injured bear who was full bipedal and was walking that way all the time. Birds are bipedal, but you aren't claiming we evolved from them .

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Sabertooth said:
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...

We discovered the chicken came before the egg in 2017. The eggshell contains enzymes that are only produced by the ovaries of a chicken. This finding backs up God created adult humans and animals to procreate. This is fact now, but it contradicts evolution so it has been ignored in science.

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Brightmoon said:
View attachment 261939 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

I got an idea for a simple experiment from Pedals. This bear became fully bipedal because he injured his front paw. Can we tie one of an apes/chimps hands so it is disabled temporarily? Will it be forced to walk bipedal or will it have difficulties? Obviously, we cannot document it being passed on, but it would show whether it can be fully biped or not.

Here's an example of an ape

It's your "faith-based" science Brightmoon, so you can figure out and tie the great ape .

Resha Caner · Aug 30, 2019

jamesbond007 said:
Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.
...
We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I disagree with several of the things you've written, which means the conversation could go many different directions. Therefore, to provide focus, I wonder which issue you consider to be more fundamental to your concern:
* science
* education
* spirituality
* the created world

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I disagree with several of the things you've written, which means the conversation could go many different directions. Therefore, to provide focus, I wonder which issue you consider to be more fundamental to your concern:
* science
* education
* spirituality
* the created world

I would go by your sig first sola gratia, but we are not allowed to teach that as science .

In regards to this thread, I would put science first and this would be using the scientific method as this is what we will be teaching. The father of the scientific method was Sir Francis Bacon, a creation scientist, so we would learn about all the great creation scientists of the past. Second, would be education and this would be to teach and get students to not just mindlessly spew out the correct answers or the answers the teacher is looking for. We want them to be able to think for themselves and be able to make conclusions for themselves. They can have an opposing view, but they would have to present a good scientific or rational argument. For example, how does one argue for changes over millions of years? Or how does one argue that abiogenesis didn't happen in a million years?

I assume by created world, we have to present some evidence of creation, so that would be next.

I'm not going to go into spirituality as that would be religious. That said, we have the supernatural in creation, so would have to discuss that in created world. We would have to show that our universe, Earth, and everything in it has some supernatural to it as things that cannot be explained by nature, natural, or physical, i.e. empicism, alone. In this regard, we bring in a priori thinking in addition to the scientific a posteriori thinking. We have to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in addition to just a posteriori thinking in order to find and learn about the truth.

lismore · Aug 30, 2019

Many of us are probably old enough to remember how widely the supposed age of the earth has varied within living memory as evolutioniary scientists rethink their opinions. We've seen how supposed 'missing links' have been announced with gleeful fanfare and then quietly dropped years later. If you read a very old work on evolution you'll find disturbing themes there, the inferiority of certain 'races' etc.

Case in point, another dubious fragment of monkey bone leads to a ton of speculation:
Advanced ape skull find changes human origin ideas

If you've looked into an academic work on any subject you'll see how little agreement there is on just about any subject. 'Global cooling', 'global warming', 'climate change'.
Opinions might change before the book is even published. Professor John Tosh controversially said that academic works are works of fiction, more to do with the opinions of the authors than any factual basis. These authors are heavily biased, subject to intense peer pressure, paid to support certain viewpoints and ignore others.

God's word is a sure and certain foundation more so than the shifting sand of 'Science', 'academia'. The foolishness of God is more certain than the wisdom of man.

We should be teaching the gospel as truth, the life of Jesus Christ is rooted in documented History. What passes as science should be taught in the same class as the life of Harry Potter.

God Bless

Resha Caner · Aug 30, 2019

jamesbond007 said:
In regards to this thread, I would put science first and this would be using the scientific method as this is what we will be teaching.

I think I can conclude we've narrowed it down to at least these two: science and education. I was hoping we could narrow it to just one. For example, are you more concerned with how actual scientists are practicing their discipline or are you more concerned with how curricula are selected for schools?

But maybe those two are inseparable in your mind. You're concerned about science education. Would that be fair?

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Hawkins said:
Both sides represent a possibility which is unconfirmable in terms of strict science.

Science demand repeatability simply because we humans (more precisely our brain) will have to rely on predictability to determine a truth. Humans cannot possibly know the future. If a theory can predict the future precisely, our brain thus will know for sure (beyond doubt) that the theory is holding a truth. Both ToE and ID are thus not strict science behaving in this manner. Both cannot be confirmed (in the end by a human brain) by the predictability of the theory itself.

We can predict that 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, that is, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. Given water we can any time predict and reproduce this result for our brain to confirm its truth.

We can't predict that single cell organism + natural selection = a human. Given a single cell organism, we can't any time predict and reproduce this result for our brain to confirm its truth.

So whether ID or ToE being taught is much less important than the clarification that ToE is not a strict science. At this stage of human research, it's a study of history assisted by scientific methods. It's not a theory of repeatability and predictability as a strict science is. It cannot be confirmed as a strict science can. Not only the ToE and ID, but also BBT fall into this category due to the absence of repeatability and predictability (i.e., we can't make a big bang repeat itself indefinitely as we can to the dissolving of water into hydrogen and oxygen).

Genesis states there was a lot of water vapor surrounding the Earth Water is an universal solvent, so if abiogenesis is true, it does not want water. It's ironic that water is necessary for life, but to amino acids, it is the enemy. If we end up 2H2 and O2, then if we have free hydrogen, that is unstable and cause for an explosion. Thus, if we want abiogenesis, we do not want free hydrogen nor water. From the assumption that the early universe just had water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane, then the amino acids do not form under Miller-Urey.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/on_the_miller-u_1/

Resha Caner · Aug 30, 2019

jamesbond007 said:
Genesis states there was a lot of water vapor surrounding the Earth

The text is never so explicit as to state it is water vapor. In fact, the context of those passages implies more the word "fluid" .. maybe even "ethereal substance" if you stretch it .. than it does a literal H20. It's common in Hebrew to pair the word mayim with other adjectives to indicate a variety of physical and figurative fluids.

Go Braves · Aug 30, 2019

Gonna answer this one succinctly. No, absolutely not.

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

lismore said:
Many of us are probably old enough to remember how widely the supposed age of the earth has varied within living memory as evolutioniary scientists rethink their opinions. We've seen how supposed 'missing links' have been announced with gleeful fanfare and then quietly dropped years later. If you read a very old work on evolution you'll find disturbing themes there, the inferiority of certain 'races' etc.

Case in point, another dubious fragment of monkey bone leads to a ton of speculation:
Advanced ape skull find changes human origin ideas

If you've looked into an academic work on any subject you'll see how little agreement there is on just about any subject. 'Global cooling', 'global warming', 'climate change'.
Opinions might change before the book is even published. Professor John Tosh controversially said that academic works are works of fiction, more to do with the opinions of the authors than any factual basis. These authors are heavily biased, subject to intense peer pressure, paid to support certain viewpoints and ignore others.

God's word is a sure and certain foundation more so than the shifting sand of 'Science', 'academia'. The foolishness of God is more certain than the wisdom of man.

We should be teaching the gospel as truth, the life of Jesus Christ is rooted in documented History. What passes as science should be taught in the same class as the life of Harry Potter.

God Bless

God Bless to you, too. I do agree with your comments on the missing links disturbing themes (such as Darwin's racism and support of eugenics, social Darwinism, Holocaust, and more) as they are still valid today (genocide, Planned Parenthood). That was a nice article as it has links to Nature in it. If we have australopithecus anamensis to replace Lucy, then why are all bets off? Don't they have to still explain these transitional fossils that we are finding? Famed paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey did not think Lucy, au. af., was one animal, but a composite from several animals. I thought it was more of circular thinking in having the evidence fit the theory of common ancestor. Leakey also found a human skull in a layers of rock that was dated at 212 million years old. That finding was disregarded. What is interesting to me is the Bible cannot change, but science is allowed to change. Yet, we find science backs up the Bible. For example, with the universe we found the eternal universe theory was pseudoscience. Now, we have a clear beginning because of the discovery of the CMB. Afterward came the big bang theory.

jamesbond007 · Aug 30, 2019

Resha Caner said:
The text is never so explicit as to state it is water vapor. In fact, the context of those passages implies more the word "fluid" .. maybe even "ethereal substance" if you stretch it .. than it does a literal H20. It's common in Hebrew to pair the word mayim with other adjectives to indicate a variety of physical and figurative fluids.

This is the second day of creation. "Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." Genesis 1:6

I think it is referring to the canopy of water above the atmosphere and this is thought to be water vapor or else how could it stay there? I don't understand your fluid or "ethereal substance?" How can it stay in the atmosphere above the canopy? I think we agree God created the oceans below on Earth.

Even the big bang has water vapor in the early atmosphere.

Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

Christ is King

Searching for Truth

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

Searching for Truth

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Maranatha

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

I miss Senator McCain

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency