Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[xMinionX]

Science is a product of the philosopies of how things are known, and to discuss science without discussing underlying assumptions is to discuss something in ignorance.

Hmmm... I don't think I would have a problem with a basic philosophy class being a pre-requisite to any in-depth science classes.... I can see how one compliments the other.

But science class, as far as educators are concerned, is also a good way to teach children experimentation and critical thinking. Developing a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis is something that we, as adults, do almost every day, in some form or another. An awareness of that process can help the child in their thinking skills.

I'm not being very clear right now, I know. Glean from my ramblings what you can, and I'll clear up any misunderstandings on the morrow. But it is 2:30 in the morning right now.

 

[=-ReveLationz-=]

OK, i guess i was a little silly just writing what i did about the evolutionary theory. let me rephrase it..

"The Evolutionary Theory in my Opinion, is not only untrue, due to the fact that i believe in the infallibility of God's Word (including the creation theory taught in Genesis etc..) but in my opinion rather silly, cause if we evolved from apes/fishes/lizards/whatever else... why haven't the rest of the species evolved? (apes/fishes/lizards/whatever else...)"

In all honesty i havent really done much research on the evolutionist way of thinking since i first heard we all apparently evolved from apes? naive maybe, but im a simple man of faith..

In the same regard that there are thousands of scientists supporting the evolutionist theory, there are thousands of pure men of science and non christian related historians who are just as convinced that the creation theory is as valid.

also, its funny how most people^^^^^ expect they're opinions to be heard and accepted, and that the creationist theory is invalid... but where is your infallible proof that creationism is metaphorical or untrue?

and no matter how much you would like it to be, evolution is JUST A THEORY, it still hasnt been "matter of facted" (pardon the grammer)...

Please understand that im new to this sort of discussion and may not have transported my thoughts from my head to words, exactly how i am supposed to have.. please bear with me and ill try to do things the right way as i learn how to!

peaCe

 

[xMinionX]

"The Evolutionary Theory in my Opinion, is not only untrue, due to the fact that i believe in the infallibility of God's Word (including the creation theory taught in Genesis etc..) but in my opinion rather silly, cause if we evolved from apes/fishes/lizards/whatever else... why haven't the rest of the species evolved? (apes/fishes/lizards/whatever else...)"

A bunch of reasons. Opposable thumbs, enlarged frontal lobes, etc. Ever watch 2001? One group went one way, one went another way, and so on...

And other species have evolved. Just not like we did. I suggest you read Stephen Baxters Evolution. Good read, and your head will be spinning by the end, just from the sheer scale of it all. Gives great examples and ideas of how varying environments shaped the evolution of species.

In all honesty i havent really done much research on the evolutionist way of thinking since i first heard we all apparently evolved from apes? naive maybe, but im a simple man of faith..

Perhaps you should do some research on the idea you're ripping into. Just because it seems odd doesn't mean it's impossible.

I don't know, maybe you have this image in your head that, one day, in the jungle, a female ape was in labor, and *pop* out jumped a human being! Didn't really work that way.

In the same regard that there are thousands of scientists supporting the evolutionist theory, there are thousands of pure men of science and non christian related historians who are just as convinced that the creation theory is as valid.

True. But I'd say that the scales are far more in favor of evolution, particularly among the scientifically educated.

also, its funny how most people^^^^^ expect they're opinions to be heard and accepted, and that the creationist theory is invalid... but where is your infallible proof that creationism is metaphorical or untrue?

The burden of proof lies on you (and other creationists) to show that creationism is true. A book that claims itself to be true is not scientific proof. It might be good enough for religion, and that's fine. But not for science.

and no matter how much you would like it to be, evolution is JUST A THEORY, it still hasnt been "matter of facted" (pardon the grammer)...

*head s'plodes* I'll let someone else take this one... I just got finished explaining this to my cousin, who so eloquently said "I evolved from an ape? But I don't look like an ape or act like an ape. So I don't believe in it."

Please understand that im new to this sort of discussion and may not have transported my thoughts from my head to words, exactly how i am supposed to have.. please bear with me and ill try to do things the right way as i learn how to!

Welcome to the forums.

 

[corvus_corax]

there are thousands of pure men of science and non christian related historians who are just as convinced that the creation theory is as valid.

There are? Thousands of non-christian scientists and historians who believe the 144 hour creation story is just as valid?

Please understand that im new to this sort of discussion and may not have transported my thoughts from my head to words, exactly how i am supposed to have.. please bear with me and ill try to do things the right way as i learn how to!
peaCe

Welcome to debate!
There will be rough spots and lots of bumps, but half the fun is in the learning

 

[corvus_corax]

*head s'plodes* I'll let someone else take this one... I just got finished explaining this to my cousin, who so eloquently said "I evolved from an ape? But I don't look like an ape or act like an ape. So I don't believe in it."

I got it for ya
From http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
"A (scientific) theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena."

Hope that helps

 

[=-ReveLationz-=]

..LOL.. Thanks corvus_corax i was hoping someone would understand!

Ok, ummm.. i probably cant back that statement about the scientists up cause i dont really know thousands of scientists, but i know a few.. and i think i onCe heard the the dude who originally formalised the evolutionist theory, eventually became a born again christian and renounced his theory?? ill be back with the facts on that one when i find the truth?

peaCerz

 

[=-ReveLationz-=]

.. and thanx too minion... i didnt see your post.. You guys are awesome.. im here to discuss and learn because i believe in the truth, and i want to know the truth.. if im wrong then im wrong! i just want the truth!

peaCerz

 

[Arikay]

Shane: So are you saying that last tuesdayism should be taught in science class as a valid age of the earth?

Reve: It is important to point out that how many people accept something doesn't mean it is correct. For a tounge in cheek response to the creationist scientist lists I would suggest doing a google search for project steve.
Darwin, didn't renounce his theory or become a christian as far as we know. It was made up and is often called the Lady Hope story. The person who made it up showed that they never talked to Darwin based on their statements. It is also important to point out that Darwin was a christian when he formulated evolution and that it has been a good 100 years since he died, whether he renounced it or not doesn't matter.
A related story, Einstein called the cosmological constant one of his biggest blunders (basically renouncing it) but current evidence shows it may be correct.

 

[=-ReveLationz-=]

OK.. So if the theory was made up. why are we areguing about it?...

or is it cause now they have current evidence supporting it.. it seems to be just as controversial as the bible/creationist theory?..

(ps. ill do that search now..lol..)

peaCerz

 

[Arikay]

No, the story that Darwin recanted evolution is false and was made up.

 

[xMinionX]

im here to discuss and learn because i believe in the truth, and i want to know the truth.. if im wrong then im wrong! i just want the truth!

peaCerz

*screams and runs away*

Sorry, just couldn't handle seeing someone admit that they might possibly be wrong. It happens so rarely, I really thought I was having a seizure.

 

[Madcoil]

If the theory of evolution states that humans and apes have common ancestors then I don't see how anyone can be opposed to it. Come on people. We're all TARZAN!!!

 

[Shane Roach]

The burden of proof lies on you (and other creationists) to show that creationism is true. A book that claims itself to be true is not scientific proof. It might be good enough for religion, and that's fine. But not for science.

I do not believe creationism to be a scientific explanation. I do, however, believe it to be an equally viable explanation. This is a problem with this debate as it is now framed.

The only reason I even care about it at all is that it is dishonest in my opinion for people to discuss scientific, and hence naturalistc or mechanistic explanations for the past without making it very clear that at no time will we ever be able to go back and verify any of it. There is a difference between making a hypothesis about what will happen and making a hypothesis about what did happen. That difference is that the past is gone, but the future can be observed as it comes to pass.

It's not necessary for creation to be scientific to be mentioned beside scientific theories in a science class. Now, some sort of full explanation of creation would in my opinion be uncalled for. That is for another class. But honesty about how conscious manipulation, or even just changes in the natural order of things that we would have no idea happened in the distant past, can have effects that simply don't show in theories like evolution as the origin of species or theories concerning the origin of the universe.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I do not believe creationism to be a scientific explanation. I do, however, believe it to be an equally viable explanation. This is a problem with this debate as it is now framed.

Then you are wrong. Creationism has been falsified, a couple of hundred years ago.

It's not necessary for creation to be scientific to be mentioned beside scientific theories in a science class.

Yes, it is. That's why it's called science class...it's about science. Creationism isn't science.

 

[Shane Roach]

Then you are wrong. Creationism has been falsified, a couple of hundred years ago.

Care to elaborate? Has God been falsified too? Did I miss a press release?

Yes, it is. That's why it's called science class...it's about science. Creationism isn't science.

I am not aware of any moral imperative that people be forbidden to discuss, compare, or contrast related topics in a class simply because they are not from the same discipline. As I have said repeatedly, I would be loathe to have too much time spent on such a comparison too.

 

[Shane Roach]

http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZS

If the theory of evolution states that humans and apes have common ancestors then I don't see how anyone can be opposed to it. Come on people. We're all TARZAN!!!

Oook?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Care to elaborate? Has God been falsified too? Did I miss a press release?

Science cannot falsify god, nor does it try to do so. It can and has falsified creationism. Any number of threads on this forum detail this.

I am not aware of any moral imperative that people be forbidden to discuss, compare, or contrast related topics in a class simply because they are not from the same discipline. As I have said repeatedly, I would be loathe to have too much time spent on such a comparison too.

Why should we waste time in any class discussing things that are outside of the subject? There's no moral imperative that we can't discuss woodworking in music class, or the theory of numbers in history class, either...but why would we? Similarly, why would we discuss a religious belief in science class?

 

[Shane Roach]

Science cannot falsify god, nor does it try to do so. It can and has falsified creationism. Any number of threads on this forum detail this.

I haven't seen any. A simple few sentences of what you are talking about would suffice.

Why should we waste time in any class discussing things that are outside of the subject? There's no moral imperative that we can't discuss woodworking in music class, or the theory of numbers in history class, either...but why would we? Similarly, why would we discuss a religious belief in science class?

It is not a waste of time. It is related. For example, your example that we would not discuss woodworking in a music class actually misses that if we are talking about a guitar, and how to judge a good one, we actually would discuss in passing things related to woodworking.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It is not a waste of time. It is related. For example, your example that we would not discuss woodworking in a music class actually misses that if we are talking about a guitar, and how to judge a good one, we actually would discuss in passing things related to woodworking.

It would be a complete waste of time. Creationism is not science, it does not use the scientific method. The only thing it has to do with science is that it is a good example of pseudoscience. It is a religious belief trying to masquerade as science. It has no place in a science classroom.

 

[Shane Roach]

It would be a complete waste of time. Creationism is not science, it does not use the scientific method. The only thing it has to do with science is that it is a good example of pseudoscience. It is a religious belief trying to masquerade as science. It has no place in a science classroom.

It's related to Big Bang and evolution as the origin of species and I have repeatedly said I am not interested in having it taught as science.

And, you ignored the example. Your entire argument is character assassination and denial. I could handle just the denial but the character assassination is supposed to be against the rules here.

Matter of fact I'm not entirely sure they do anything.