Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Shane Roach]

Hm. I understand what you are saying. And yet in my mind, at least, there is the very basic idea that evolution/big bang theory is a popular scientific belief, whereas creationism is a theological belief. There are some people who regard both as true/valid to some extent, as I do. I've never been in science class where we didn't naturally turn to a discussion of the various theories of creation, including creationism. However, I don't think its merited that creationism is in text books or curriculums.

A proper understanding of the big bang theory requires either years of education or years of personal study. I believe that the oft repeated assertion that it is scientific and ideas about creation are not is a stretch. We are all if us also painfully aware, in religious circles, how completely over-run our higher educational insitutions are with anti-religious folk. It becomes more disturbing when this predilection to toss religious or spiritual topics aside dismisively is then foisted off on our children in public education.

The simplistic explanation of the Big Bang that time allows in primary education would preclude anything like a complete understanding and as such, the high spots of all views likely to be confronted by the child needs to be included in discussions about the creation of the universe, in my opinion.

 

[Shane Roach]

It appears there is already some missuderstanding about the big bang. Since the big bang is not about first cause, it doesn't rule out "concious creation" since it has no statement about first cause. Think of it like turning on your computer, the big bang is an attempt to explain what happens right after the button is pushed, but makes no statement about who or what caused the computer to start up.

Most indepth descriptions of the big bang I have read point out the questions it has yet to answer, but that is the difference between the big bang and creationism. The big bang theory is still being developed, where as creationism has been falsified.

I can not count on all my fingers and toes how many times I have heard this assertion. First off, you cannot falsify conscious creation without an understanding of what consciousness and will are, and we do not have that. Secondly, you cannot falsify something about a conscious creation because you cannot assert that something created by a free will has to look any particular way (again, the nature of consciousness and will and whether or not there is a will or power capable of such are not somethinbg you can merely brush off because it is 'unscientific'.) Finally, the idea that the Big Bang explanation is not largely motivated by people who are actively looking for a non-spiritual explanation of the creation of the universe is absurd, as any study of the history of the theory would quickly reveal. there is a definite political and social angle to this theory that relates to the power wielded by educational elites vs the power wielded by society based on its own beliefs.

Don't even get me started on Sartre and the history of liberal thought in the 20th century again. Deny deny deny, but folks who have questions about so called science on these matters are well used to being brushed aside with high sounding pronouncements like "well, this has been falsified," or, "well you just don't understand." If the scientific community wants these issues understood, let's see the science on the subject not be locked away in scientific journals (some of which will charge you online as much as $30.00 an article!) and start making it all public and available to all.

 

[Alencon]

A proper understanding of the big bang theory requires either years of education or years of personal study. I believe that the oft repeated assertion that it is scientific and ideas about creation are not is a stretch. We are all if us also painfully aware, in religious circles, how completely over-run our higher educational insitutions are with anti-religious folk. It becomes more disturbing when this predilection to toss religious or spiritual topics aside dismisively is then foisted off on our children in public education.

The simplistic explanation of the Big Bang that time allows in primary education would preclude anything like a complete understanding and as such, the high spots of all views likely to be confronted by the child needs to be included in discussions about the creation of the universe, in my opinion.

However the place for that discussion is in a philosophy or social science curriculum and not in a science curriculum.

What should be explained, and usually is, is that science, by definition, is the search for naturalistic explanations to observed phenomena based upon the facts as they are understood. As such science, by it's very nature, is incapable of dealing with the supernatural.

Once the limitation of science is understood, I don't see a conflict here.

 

[Shane Roach]

However the place for that discussion is in a philosophy or social science curriculum and not in a science curriculum.

What should be explained, and usually is, is that science, by definition, is the search for naturalistic explanations to observed phenomena based upon the facts as they are understood. As such science, by it's very nature, is incapable of dealing with the supernatural.

Once the limitation of science is understood, I don't see a conflict here.

No, because we do indeed observe consciousness and will. These things are discounted in the Big Bang explanation even though consciousness and will are, in the terms you choose to use, naturalistic, observed phenomena.

The so called "supernatural" is what we have traditionally termed things having to do with consciousness and will, and perhaps that is valid, but it is NOT valid to then pretend they do not exist and that discussions about the creation of all things must be artificially split between those that take that into acount and those that do not.

 

[Arikay]

I can not count on all my fingers and toes how many times I have heard this assertion. First off, you cannot falsify conscious creation without an understanding of what consciousness and will are, and we do not have that.

Please go back and read my post. You will note I Never said that you can falsify conscious creation but that the big bang doesn't address first cause or the drive behind it.

Finally, the idea that the Big Bang explanation is not largely motivated by people who are actively looking for a non-spiritual explanation of the creation of the universe is absurd, as any study of the history of the theory would quickly reveal.

1) You can't be serious. A study of the history of the big bang reveals that it was originally thought up by a priest and that a few atheists opposed the idea because it ment the universe we know today is not infinite and thus must have a beginning (allowing for the possibility of a creator).

2) That doesn't matter, whatever the real or pretend political agenda is pushing a theory doesn't change the fact that the big bang is the best explanation we have for the evidence we see today.

 

[Alencon]

No, because we do indeed observe consciousness and will. These things are discounted in the Big Bang explanation even though consciousness and will are, in the terms you choose to use, naturalistic, oberved phenomena.

The so called "supernatural" is what we have traditionally termed things having to do with consciousness and will, and perhaps that is valid, but it is NOT valid to then pretend they do not exist and that discussions about the creation of all things must be artificially split between those that take that into acount and those that do not.

Why do you say that we have traditionally termed things relating to consciousness and will "supernatural?" I'm not aware of any such classification at least not for consciousness. You'll have to define what you mean by the term "will." Consciousness is certainly considered natural. If by "will" you mean the ability to bring something into existence or affect the physical characteristics of something through pure mental activity, then I would disagree that this has ever been observed and is therefore, I guess, by extension not natural.

When I use the term "supernatural" I'm refering to the concept of creation through divine intervention or "will" as I described it above. While philosophically this is a valid position, it is simply outside the ability of science to deal with it in the same way that miracles are outside the ability of history to deal with them so they are ignored.

Similarly since science is incapable of dealing with creation through divine intervention it ignores the possibility. I honestly don't see why this is an issue. Once you remove the presumption of naturalism, science ceases to be science.

This is a limitation of science and not a limitation of reality.

 

[Shane Roach]

Please go back and read my post. You will note I Never said that you can falsify conscious creation but that the big bang doesn't address first cause or the drive behind it..

You said creationism had been falsified. You can't falsify it because it has to do with a conscious creative act, not anything you are capable of going back and observing, or reverse engineering.

1) You can't be serious. A study of the history of the big bang reveals that it was originally thought up by a priest and that a few atheists opposed the idea because it ment the universe we know today is not infinite and thus must have a beginning (allowing for the possibility of a creator).

2) That doesn't matter, whatever the real or pretend political agenda is pushing a theory doesn't change the fact that the big bang is the best explanation we have for the evidence we see today.

I can be serious and I stand by the statement. Go back and look at the entire history of it, not just the atheist's favorite talking points.

And no, the big bang is not the 'best' explanation in any way except the opinion of people who buy into it already. I don't pretend to know how the universe was created, and I don't argue for creationism except inasmuch as I refuse to give in to the silly assertion that anyone can prove that God could not possibly have done what the Bible says. What I know is there are holes the size of trucks to drive through the supposed 'explanation' of the Big Bang, and yet people refuse to let people discuss the various ideas about the flighty concept of how all life, the universe and everything came into being based on them not being 'scientific' in some socio-political sense of the term 'scientific'.

 

[Shane Roach]

Why do you say that we have traditionally termed things relating to consciousness and will "supernatural?" I'm not aware of any such classification at least not for consciousness. You'll have to define what you mean by the term "will." Consciousness is certainly considered natural. If by "will" you mean the ability to bring something into existence or affect the physical characteristics of something through pure mental activity, then I would disagree that this has ever been observed and is therefore, I guess, by extension not natural.

When I use the term "supernatural" I'm refering to the concept of creation through divine intervention or "will" as I described it above. While philosophically this is a valid position, it is simply outside the ability of science to deal with it in the same way that miracles are outside the ability of history to deal with them so they are ignored.

Similarly since science is incapable of dealing with creation through divine intervention it ignores the possibility. I honestly don't see why this is an issue. Once you remove the presumption of naturalism, science ceases to be science.

This is a limitation of science and not a limitation of reality.

Simple. I am talking about the concept of the soul. That is what people mean when they talk about their soul - their experience of themselves as self-aware beings with the ability to act on their own impulse in some fashion.

Since this is observed, and since it is apparent that the will wields through some mechanism of our bodies physical power to effect change, it is beyond my ability to comprehend why people such as you find the idea that a conscious will could exist that likewise has the ability to control matter through some mechanism created the reality we know now so outside of natural occurance. It is not 'supernatural' in the sense that it is outside of our experience, it is merely supernatural in the sense that it excedes our finite ability to encompass, and in that way, frankly, so are all the non-spritual explanations such as the Big Bang. No one KNOWS how the universe came into being. What is the big deal about discussing all options in a precious science class? Well, it's all about somantics and power and control, obviously, and trying to marginalize religion. That's all. It's painfully obvious and yet here we all are. Silly really. Just let people know all the different concepts. It's easy, hurts no one, and is in the best spirit of open communication and debate and just LEARNING.

In fact, the very idea that most scientists actually seem to believe they have a pretty good handle on the universe at all given our situation stuck on this planet without the means to get anywhere almost at all stuns me. That as much as anything just reeks of people claiming authority more to solidify their position in society rather than being open and objective about what they are doing.

 

[Arikay]

You said creationism had been falsified. You can't falsify it because it has to do with a conscious creative act, not anything you are capable of going back and observing, or reverse engineering.

Creationism is different than creation.
Creationism is a scientific theory. There are different versions such as young earth and old earth. It was the leading theory before the 19th century. Although modern creationism does often fall into the trap of enacting God to fix it's problems, the basis is still science.
Because of that it can be falsified and it has been falsified.
But creationism, being science, is just a theory about How god created not If God created.

I can be serious and I stand by the statement. Go back and look at the entire history of it, not just the atheist's favorite talking points.

My "talking points" weren't from an atheist. However, if you are serious then you should have no problem supporting your claims with reputable sources.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Hi there!



In America, Christianity has become "oppressed" by every other religion, denomination, and civil organization that could possibly muster enough news coverage to create a big squeak. Everyone gets rights now EXCEPT the Christian...

It's reverse discrimination.


Why mandate that Darwinism must be taught and creationism must be shelved?

Why hand out condoms and refuse to teach abstinance as an alternative?

Why remove Christian prayer from the schools yet allow muslims to pray?

Why should we remove all religious symbolisms at Christmas and replace them with Santa and the reindeer, after all, it's CHRIST-mas.


Christianity and Christian teachings deserve the same amount of time as everyone and everything else gets.


It's been shelved for a long time, and look what's happened to our society.


~serapha~

Megga Mormon Dittos from the Mormon Mafia!

 

[Shane Roach]

Creationism is different than creation.
Creationism is a scientific theory. There are different versions such as young earth and old earth. It was the leading theory before the 19th century. Although modern creationism does often fall into the trap of enacting God to fix it's problems, the basis is still science.
Because of that it can be falsified and it has been falsified.
But creationism, being science, is just a theory about How god created not If God created.

As I said, you cannot refute it because it has to do with things science has nothing to say about of any weight, such as will, choice, power and so forth. You can't reverse engineer an act of God. Pun (or whatever that is) fully intended.

My "talking points" weren't from an atheist. However, if you are serious then you should have no problem supporting your claims with reputable sources.

Your talking points are things I have read on atheist websites. They are popular there because they make it sound as if there is some sort of paranoia driving the idea that keeping the discussion of creation out of classrooms is politically motivated.

What would you consider proof that there this move to exclude creationistic explanations based on politics? The fact that statistically conservatives are under-represented in universities perhaps does not move you? Do I need to dig up proof that large amounts of the money necessary to continue such research comes from tax dollars which would be much reduced if people were not convinced that the Big Bang was a good line of research to be following? How about the same group of people being continually behind movements to remove references to God from all public institutions?

You give me some clue about which corner of the mountain of evidence that left wing elitists want to shove religion out of public discourse will be convincing to you and I will dig you up a source.

Again, what is the big deal about simply discussing the issues in the tiny portion of any class that would ever be devoted to the subject to begin with? Because the holy and inviolate connotations of the word "science" would be sullied?

Please...

It's just too painfully obvious for words - your entire argument is based totally on semantics.

 

[Arikay]

So does that mean you don't have any sources for your claims about the big bang, besides a list of buzz words in a rather paranoid conspiracy theory?

 

[Shane Roach]

So does that mean you don't have any sources for your claims about the big bang, besides a list of buzz words in a rather paranoid conspiracy theory?

Heh.. There is the accusation again of paranoia over simply believing people should be allowed to see what different people believe about the beginning of the universe.

What exactly is it about the Big Bang that I have asserted that you find objectionable?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Heh.. There is the accusation again of paranoia over simply believing people should be allowed to see what different people believe about the beginning of the universe.

What exactly is it about the Big Bang that I have asserted that you find objectionable?

Err, as of four years ago when I went to school, the Big Bang wasn't taught, let alone mentioned.

Evolution was, as it should be, as it is science.

So, what is the debate?

 

[Shane Roach]

"If the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the observable horizon is high enough, then it could stop the expansion of the universe, and then reverse it. The universe would then contract, in about the same time as the expansion took. Eventually, all matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity. It is meaningless to ask what would happen after this, as time would stop in this singularity as well."

-http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Big+Crunch&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1

In other words, "we aint got no clew how thuh yewniverse coulda popped owt frum a singulauritay."

The real problem is that none of the several possible solutions for the observed behavior of the universe make sense. Apparently since 2002 scientists are convinced that the universe's expansion is accelerating because of dark energy, i.e. something we have yet to see. It is supposed to make up 70% of the universe and yet conveniently none of it is anywhere near us.

Whatever...

The bottom line, as I say, is that the struggle here is to come up with an explanation of the universe without resorting to a fiat of it being created by God, which is legitimate as far as it goes, but is not actually in any way 'scientifically' superior, or in any way measureably 'more likely', or any of the catchy little phrases tossed around to try to make the explanation that God created everything in 7 days sound quaint and illogical.

 

[Shane Roach]

Err, as of four years ago when I went to school, the Big Bang wasn't taught, let alone mentioned.

Evolution was, as it should be, as it is science.

So, what is the debate?

That's interesting. Did you take physics? It was taught in high school physics I know waaaay back in 1985 or '86, whenever it was that I took it. As I said, it was not gone into in detail.

So you're convinced evolution is a more 'scientific' explanation of the origin of species than creation? Tell me, what exactly is the rate of speciation vs. extinction in the last million years or so? Is there any information on these rates that goes back to hypothesized beginnings of life? How did life get its start to begin with? Oh, and specifically in the speciation of higher order creatures that reproduce sexually - mammals, birds, reptiles etc, tell me, how does a creature ever mate that has mutated such that it is not able to mate at least artificially with all its ancestor species? Why are they not backwards compatible I guess is my question.

 

[mycatspice]

Why do Christians want creationism taught in public schools? Or "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Or, "In God We Trust" on currency? What purpose do the above serve? How do the above benefit the country?

I ask you the same.



Why do Atheists want evolution taught in public schools? Or "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? Or, "In God We Trust" not appear on currency? What purpose do the above serve? How do the above benefit the country?



I know!



I'd suppose that you think that the following message would portray a horrendous example to our impressionable youngsters:



"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." -- 1 Corinthians 13:4

 

[xMinionX]

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." -- 1 Corinthians 13:4

No, I'm more worried about children learning this...

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

That said, do you think a secular school is incapable of teaching that love is precious?

 

[MartinM]

What I know is there are holes the size of trucks to drive through the supposed 'explanation' of the Big Bang

Let's see them, then.

 

[Phred]

Why do Atheists want evolution taught in public schools?

Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution is science. I want them taught because they are knowledge.

Or "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

I'm not under a god. I don't believe in any gods. Why should I or my children be expected to say that we are just because you believe it? There is no verifiable evidence that any deity exists at all. Why do you want to force me to acknowledge your faith?

Or, "In God We Trust" not appear on currency?

I don't trust in any gods.

What purpose do the above serve? How do the above benefit the country?

Yes, what purpose does it serve to say "under god" in the pledge other than to validate your personal faith?

I'd suppose that you think that the following message would portray a horrendous example to our impressionable youngsters:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." -- 1 Corinthians 13:4

No, it's very nice. It's from a book written by men. The only danger from learning like this is when you try to claim it's from a deity and no man could ever aspire to write such a thing. Bah... we should all be aspriing to be more than we are. Why do you insist we should aspire to be less than an imaginary deity.

.
​