Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

Sharing a viewpoint means that you are sometimes going to get people who disagree with you. I am expressing my opinion as to why pushing creationism in schools is not what God really wants us to do. We are told to preach the gospel, and not Young Earth Creationism. While I believe Young Earth Creationism is true, it is not the gospel as some make it out to be. Jesus cannot be separated from the creation account. The whole Bible is about Jesus. So it is not another topic in my view.

John 5:39 says, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they [i.e. the Scriptures] are they which testify of me."​

Note: the words in blue in brackets is my commentary to the text.

Anyways, the verse above is saying that the Scriptures testify of Jesus. Every letter, word, and page in your Bible points to Jesus. That is what the Scriptures are ultimately about. It's all about Jesus and salvation in Him.

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

The way it happened was explained by Bible Highlighter in post #12, but here it is in-a-nutshell. Much of the supernatural happened here in the first two books of Genesis in regards to the creation science. It's creation ex nihilo.

In contradiction to what God wrote, we have evolution as written by different scientists throughout the ages. They start with "nothing," as universe ex nihilo. There were these invisible quantum particles that popped in and out of existence, held an infinite amount of matter under infinite temperature and in less than 20 mins formed the basis of what we have now. It took God six days for his creation, but around twenty minutes for the big bang portion of evolution. How can anything be infinite in our natural, physical world? It violates the laws of physics and math as one cannot divide by zero. Before that, the secular or atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe and not an eternal God.

We have the supernatural miracles performed by Jesus such as turning water into wine and feeding masses with loaves of bread and fish, Resurrection, and so on, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There was water in existence before God created everything in Genesis. When God created this water is an unknown.

I believe this water is symbolic of both God, and the communicated Word of God (i.e. Verbal communications from God, and or the Scriptures, etc.).

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

The problem is.... people who are not believers.... are blind. So, although I believe that Creation is truth.... to get Christians to believe in young earth is difficult enough.... With academia immersing kids in a world without God... even for Christians... it is tough to discard all of the Atheistic Darwinian evolutionary hoax that Satan has put out there.

So, yes.. it should be taught... but this is not a world looking at scripture with seeing eyes and hearing ears... This is a world we are in but a world we are not "of".

 

[eleos1954]

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.

When Darwins evolution theory came about ... there wasn't a whole lot of "technical" info and testing methods available. Since then there has been a massive amount of knowledge revealed "science wise", mathematical wise, astro physic wise, biology wise ... and think it would behove the education system to include these areas .... get out of the " basic zoo" and into the cosmos as most all believe that is where it all started.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Creationism isn't unique to Christianity, and within Christianity there's divergent creationist types. Young Earth, Old Earth, Gap Creationism, Intelligent Design. I actually learned about them more in depth when I joined this forum as a kid and witnessed adult Christians feuding with one another over which variation was the exclusively correct one. Prior to that I was aware of creationist beliefs of other religions from traveling and learning about creationist beliefs in Russia, Greece, New Zealand. In contrast, at museums around the world the education on evolution is consistent. It's not formed by cultural beliefs.

To add - even prominent YECs have been in opposition to creationism being taught in public schools; I agree with them.

 

[JacksBratt]

The way it happened was explained by Bible Highlighter in post #12, but here it is in-a-nutshell. Much of the supernatural happened here in the first two books of Genesis in regards to the creation science. It's creation ex nihilo.

In contradiction to what God wrote, we have evolution as written by different scientists throughout the ages. They start with "nothing," as universe ex nihilo. There were these invisible quantum particles that popped in and out of existence, held an infinite amount of matter under infinite temperature and in less than 20 mins formed the basis of what we have now. It took God six days for his creation, but around twenty minutes for the big bang portion of evolution. How can anything be infinite in our natural, physical world? It violates the laws of physics and math as one cannot divide by zero. Before that, the secular or atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe and not an eternal God.

We have the supernatural miracles performed by Jesus such as turning water into wine and feeding masses with loaves of bread and fish, Resurrection, and so on, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

Some Christians will hold on, white knuckled, to the all the supernatural events that encompass Christ's life, from birth to death....

Yet ditch the simple truth of Genesis...

Why?

Because the gospel is the belief that they must hold to be true if they are to have salvation...

If their soul did not depend on this... they would argue that it was allegorical, mythical, a parable, or an analogy...as well.

Guarantee that if the scripture said "He who believes in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the six days of creation, will be saved"....... there would not be one theistic evolutionist in the camp.

 

[Brightmoon]

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.

. NO!! NO! NO No and no! Creation science is not about the Creation and is certainly not science . At best it’s a discarded pseudoscience like astrology

 

[JackRT]

Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

No. Creationism is not science because it is not evidence based. It could be examined in a class on comparative religion. In fact it could be done by examining the wide variety of creation beliefs both between religions but also between Christian denominations.

 

[JacksBratt]

. NO!! NO! NO No and no! Creation science is not about the Creation and is certainly not science . At best it’s a discarded pseudoscience like astrology

Was Jesus walking on water science? How about turning water, instantaneously, into the best wine there? Or, healing a young girl from miles away? Is that science? Blind people being able to see? Oh... ya and feeding more than 5000 people with two small fish and some bread..... that's gotta be scientifically provable... right?

Why do we expect the very first thing that God did, creating the universe in six days... to be scientific?
It's solid truth... Just as solid as walking on water... Just as scientific too.

What is not scientific is nothing exploding into everything and some how ending up with us.... How on earth is that scientific?

 

[Erik Nelson]

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

 

[Brightmoon]

Was Jesus walking on water science? How about turning water, instantaneously, into the best wine there? Or, healing a young girl from miles away? Is that science? Blind people being able to see? Oh... ya and feeding more than 5000 people with two small fish and some bread..... that's gotta be scientifically provable... right?

Why do we expect the very first thing that God did, creating the universe in six days... to be scientific?
It's solid truth... Just as solid as walking on water... Just as scientific too.

What is not scientific is nothing exploding into everything and some how ending up with us.... How on earth is that scientific?

Ignorance of how scientists get their answers doesn’t disprove the science. And by the way science doesn’t deal with supernatural phenomena. Apparently you didn’t know that .

 

[JacksBratt]

Ignorance of how scientists get their answers doesn’t disprove the science. And by the way science doesn’t deal with supernatural phenomena. Apparently you didn’t know that .

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".

 

[jamesbond007]

The problem is.... people who are not believers.... are blind. So, although I believe that Creation is truth.... to get Christians to believe in young earth is difficult enough.... With academia immersing kids in a world without God... even for Christians... it is tough to discard all of the Atheistic Darwinian evolutionary hoax that Satan has put out there.

So, yes.. it should be taught... but this is not a world looking at scripture with seeing eyes and hearing ears... This is a world we are in but a world we are not "of".

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.

 

[jamesbond007]

When Darwins evolution theory came about ... there wasn't a whole lot of "technical" info and testing methods available. Since then there has been a massive amount of knowledge revealed "science wise", mathematical wise, astro physic wise, biology wise ... and think it would behove the education system to include these areas .... get out of the " basic zoo" and into the cosmos as most all believe that is where it all started.

That's a great point you bring up. With the new testing available, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked except for changes over long time and tree of life (common ancestor). Here's an example -- Study suggests survival may not always be about competition.

 

[miamited]

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).

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

 

[jamesbond007]

In contrast, at museums around the world the education on evolution is consistent. It's not formed by cultural beliefs.

This is because evolutionary science has eliminated their competition. Creation scientists cannot get their papers published in the science journals nor Nature and Science magazines. They have been eliminated from peer review. They could lose their jobs if they try to speak their mind about creation. I was brougt up that science was always about arguments and the best scientific arguments win and become the best theory. This does not happen with evolution today. It's by consensus. Whoever gets the most scientists to agree with them wins. Thus, today's science is wrong. Secular and atheist scientists are usually wrong. The museums today promoting evolutionary thinking, history, and ToE are wrong. It's not real science, but fake science. Even the left-leaning universities with their curriculum ignore creation when it is based on real science, the scientific method. The greatest scientists of the past were creation scientists. These people before the 1850s believed in creation -- Creation scientists - creation.com. It includes Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, Louis Pasteur who demonstrated via experiment that life begats life and not spontaneous generation (abiogenesis), and Sir Isaac Newton who formulated the laws of gravity and motion (has been debunked by Einstein's general theory of relativity, but it's still useful). In Newton's days, the world believed in a fixed universe.

 

[jamesbond007]

. NO!! NO! NO No and no! Creation science is not about the Creation and is certainly not science . At best it’s a discarded pseudoscience like astrology

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.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This is because evolutionary science has eliminated their competition. Creation scientists cannot get their papers published in the science journals nor Nature and Science magazines. They have been eliminated from peer review. They could lose their jobs if they try to speak their mind about creation. I was brougt up that science was always about arguments and the best scientific arguments win and become the best theory. This does not happen with evolution today. It's by consensus. Whoever gets the most scientists to agree with them wins.

 

[Christopher0121]

Christ's commandment to do unto others as we would have them do unto us begs a question.

How would we feel if the public school system taught creation science from a Hindu perspective?

Personally, I believe that "creationism" is a religious doctrine. Every religion has it's "scientific" interpretation of the facts that favor its view of creationism. I vote we keep religion out of "basic science". However, I'd want an emphasis on evolution being a "theory".