Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

Electric Sceptic · Mar 2, 2005

Katydid said:
First off, the theory of the flat earth has been disproven. No need to teach a disproven theory. As for the other theories, they probably fall into the creationist theory. The creationist theory does not state that the one true God created earth, but that a higher being created earth. That is how it was taught to me. So any religion that believes that the earth was created by a god, would be covered in creationism.

Yes, a flat earth has been disproven...as has creationism. We need to qualify terms here...creationism specifically means the belief that the chrisitan god created in the way described in the opening chapters of genesis. Obviously, this would not accord with Hindu, or Buddhist, or native American beliefs. They have their own creation myths. So we'd need to teach them, too. Or are you happy with the simple statement "Some religions believe that a god created the earth in some specific way"?

Katydid said:
Then NO theory should be taught. It is either ALL theories, or NO theory. I can live with No theory being taught.

Okay, so now we're down to teaching NO science (since all of science is theories), just to appease some religions. Is that really what you want? A nation of scientific ignoramusses?

Katydid said:
No , just not theories of creation, big bang etc. You know, theories about the beginning of the human race.

Okay, now you qualify - you just don't want to teach any theories that deal with the creation of the universe, earth, or the origin of species. All just to appease some religious people. And what if another group of religious people start complaining because they believe the earth is flat, and teaching it is round violates their religious belief? Do you really want people's religious beliefs to determine what is taught in science classes?

Katydid said:
To me, it doesn't matter if there is a theory or "scientific theory". The point is, you have some who are offended if creationism is even mentioned, and some who are offended if it is not. So in my opinion, since, there is so much diversity in our society, NO theory of how we began should be mentioned. Let the families teach that on their own.

And leave the families - nearly all of whom are scientifically ignorant (no slur, most people are) - to teach science? And can we get them to teach math as well, in case it offends someone?

Katydid said:
If there was evidence supporting any of these theories, they would be facts not theories. A theory is something that CANNOT be proven or HASN'T been proven. Therefore, according to your own words, creation should not be discussed.

Sorry, but that's just false. There is ample evidence supporting the big bang and evolutionary theory. That doesn't make them facts - 'theory' is as far as things go in science. You're confusing the scientific usage of the term 'theory' with the non-scientific use. In science, 'theory' does NOT mean something that cannot or has not been proven. It means some explanation which has stood the test of time, which has not been disproved, and which has overwhelming evidence to support it.

Katydid said:
Now as far as evidence that goes to support a theory, all the theories have that. You can find evidence to support the big bang theory, evolution, and YES even creation, or as it is called in some circles, intelligent design. All of these have support found by scientists.

No, they don't. Creationism has no supporting evidence. Evolution does. The big bang does. That's why they're science.

Katydid said:
My only argument, is that there is no contradicting theory to gravity, or relativity, while there are many theories on creation, therefore it is wrong to limit teaching to only one of those theories.

Ther eis no contradictory SCIENTIFIC theory to the big bang and evolution. Therefore it's okay to teach that scientific theory in science classes...yes?

Katydid said:
I do sympathise with those who believe one specific thing and don't want their children to not learn it alongside other theories.

I do not. Children need to be protected from the mistakes of their parents as far as possible. Parents should not have the right to prevent their children from learning modern science because it conflicts with their religious views.

Arikay · Mar 2, 2005

Nah not a bad christian. Not everyone cares about everything or has time to care about everything. Although I would recommend researching things before making any stand.

I don't know about all schools but my school had a religious waver that allowed kids to get out of science class when teaching evolution. However creationism shouldn't be allowed in science class as it is very poor science and built on lies. And false information should not be taught in school.

Katydid said:
I know many will consider me a bad christian, but as far as I am concerned, well, I guess you could say that I am not concerned by creation. We are here, how we got here, whether by big bang, 7 day creation, or evolution, God orchestrated it. But, I do sympathise with those who believe one specific thing and don't want their children to not learn it alongside other theories.

ChristianCenturion · Mar 2, 2005

joebudda said:
How is a mirror evidence of creation? Or are you talking me? If I am evidence of creationism what other evidence to you have to support this claim?

The mirror was rhetorical, but I submit that the uniqueness of your DNA, the uniqueness of your fingerprint, the pattern of your iris, everything that makes each one of use unique, yet that unexplained thing that makes us the same is better explained by the 'theory' that I believe vs. the one that you believe.

The rest of your post I am not understanding you point you are attempting to make.

Unless you are talking of complexity (system theory) proves creationism? What are we using to assume something is complex or not? What are we using as a standard to judge what is or is not complex?

No, it was to nudge you into the real world of thought and science instead of letting you and others hide in that little box that's being referred here as the only domain of science.
IOW - It is a small citation that refutes what you and others have been claiming to be the small boundaries of 'science' and if one wishes to get technical, we could always break down the original meaning of the word science or simply look up the definitions http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm where science is seen to be more than what a few posters here have failed to confine it as... ad nauseam.
No offense, but it was that side that wanted to get 'technical' over what science is or isn't... and it comes back to bite.

AngelusSax · Mar 2, 2005

Yes, a flat earth has been disproven...as has creationism.

No, creationism has only been theorized against. There is no "proof" one way or the other.

However creationism shouldn't be allowed in science class as it is very poor science and built on lies.

Lies, or things you just don't believe in?

Be careful in calling something a lie just because you don't believe it...

ChristianCenturion · Mar 2, 2005

Electric Sceptic said:
Yes, a flat earth has been disproven...as has creationism. We need to qualify terms here...creationism specifically means the belief that the chrisitan god created in the way described in the opening chapters of genesis. Obviously, this would not accord with Hindu, or Buddhist, or native American beliefs. They have their own creation myths. So we'd need to teach them, too. Or are you happy with the simple statement "Some religions believe that a god created the earth in some specific way"?

Sorry, wrong again - there is more than what you state...

Theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing.

Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of all things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Creationism grew as a result of the advancement of the theory of evolution after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Within two decades most of the scientific community had accepted some form of organic evolution, and most churches eventually followed suit. Some conservative religious groups, however, have argued that Darwinian evolution alone cannot account for the complexity of the living world and have insisted that certain biblical descriptions of creation are revealed scientific truth. In the early 20th century, some areas in the U.S. banned the teaching of Darwinian theory, which led to the famous Scopes Trial (the so-called Monkey Trial) of 1925. Many creationists now work toward ensuring that schools and textbooks present evolution as a theory that is no more provable than biblical creation.
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9361850&query=scientific%20creationism&ct=

Katydid · Mar 2, 2005

Nah not a bad christian. Not everyone cares about everything or has time to care about everything. Although I would recommend researching things before making any stand.

The ONLY thing I am taking a stand on, is the idea that it should be taught alongside all the other theories of creation.

Or are you happy with the simple statement "Some religions believe that a god created the earth in some specific way"?

Well, maybe not that specific statement, but if they are going to spend a week on evolution and a week on big bang, then a week on the various creation theories would be appropriate.

corvus_corax · Mar 2, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Evidence? Got a mirror handy?

Actually I looked at a baby and noticed how ape-like it looked.
Then I looked at a baby gorilla and noticed how human it looked.

Katydid said:
My only argument, is that there is no contradicting theory to gravity, or relativity, while there are many theories on creation, therefore it is wrong to limit teaching to only one of those theories.

Well Germ theory has a contradicting theory- Ill humours and nightair. Nobody takes it seriously, but it is a contradicting theory.
One of the predictions of relativity (singularities) has a contradicting theory- Creationism.
Gravity has a few theories- gravity as a force, gravity as a particle and gravity as the warping and bending of spacetime. (And of course, the "God is holding everything in place" theory that was proposed last week).

Arikay · Mar 2, 2005

"The ONLY thing I am taking a stand on, is the idea that it should be taught alongside all the other theories of creation."

Even if it is a disproven theory?
what if it isn't science at all? Should science class spend time teaching the last tuesdayism version of creation?

"but if they are going to spend a week on evolution and a week on big bang, then a week on the various creation theories would be appropriate."

Should we expand this to other parts of science? A week on germ theory a week on other sickness explanations such as demons or spontaneous generation. A week on the solar system, a week on the geocentric model. etc.

That seems like it would water down our already poor science classes.

ChristianCenturion · Mar 2, 2005

corvus_corax said:
Actually I looked at a baby and noticed how ape-like it looked.
Then I looked at a baby gorilla and noticed how human it looked.

Well, you'll be a monkey's uncle... how quaint.
I could speak about the similarity of pig parts or how animals that have no use for five fingers have five fingers (digits), etc.
If you wish to be an known as an animal, by all means... I am a man.
(waiting for the inevitable retort of how humans are animals and the usual insomnia cures - funny how that mindset so easily becomes the puppet *snicker*)

Katydid · Mar 2, 2005

That seems like it would water down our already poor science classes.

Over 50% of our population claims to be Christian, that doesn't include the other religions (I believe that is the number) well anyway, a large majority believe in a God. A large majority don't believe in the other things you mentioned. On top of the fact that the "week" I referred to was just pointing out that the same amount on each theory. Not specifically a week.

Electric Sceptic · Mar 2, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Sorry, wrong again - there is more than what you state...

Theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing.

Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of all things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Creationism grew as a result of the advancement of the theory of evolution after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Within two decades most of the scientific community had accepted some form of organic evolution, and most churches eventually followed suit. Some conservative religious groups, however, have argued that Darwinian evolution alone cannot account for the complexity of the living world and have insisted that certain biblical descriptions of creation are revealed scientific truth. In the early 20th century, some areas in the U.S. banned the teaching of Darwinian theory, which led to the famous Scopes Trial (the so-called Monkey Trial) of 1925. Many creationists now work toward ensuring that schools and textbooks present evolution as a theory that is no more provable than biblical creation.
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9361850&query=scientific%20creationism&ct=

Sorry, but this is all irrelevant. Creationism as it is popularly used means literal-genesis creation by god. That is what people are arguing about.

Electric Sceptic · Mar 2, 2005

Katydid said:
Well, maybe not that specific statement, but if they are going to spend a week on evolution and a week on big bang, then a week on the various creation theories would be appropriate.

So we're back to the simple "Add some religion to science class" line. Trouble is, if you apply this consistently, science would vanish entirely from the class, replaced by all the beliefs which are NOT science (many of them disproven, like creaitonism) that people still advocate.

Thanks, but I'd sooner keep science classes for science, not religion.

Tell me, if a large proportion of the population believed for religious reasons that the earth was flat, would you advocate teaching it as part of the science class?

corvus_corax · Mar 2, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
Well, you'll be a monkey's uncle... how quaint.

I got no problem with monkeys...its humans that bug me

ChristianCenturion said:
I could speak about the similarity of pig parts or how animals that have no use for five fingers have five fingers (digits), etc.

Useless parts usually argue for evolution. Unless someone has come up with a reason why an "intelligent" designer gives an animal five fingers when they have no use for such.

ChristianCenturion said:
If you wish to be an known as an animal, by all means... I am a man.
(waiting for the inevitable retort of how humans are animals and the usual insomnia cures - funny how that mindset so easily becomes the puppet *snicker*)

Odd. I wasnt going to go there on this thread. Assumptions do you ill sir.
*snort*

Arikay · Mar 2, 2005

Around 75% of the US calls themselves christian and around 50% don't believe in evolution. It varries depending on how the poll is worded.

Sorry, but science isn't a popularity contest, it isn't a majority vote. Just because a bunch of people believe it, doesn't mean it is all of a sudden science or that it should be taught in science class. If that was so, some schools might be teaching the evils of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide.

Is it ok to teach false information in science class just because the majority believes it?

Katydid said:
Over 50% of our population claims to be Christian, that doesn't include the other religions (I believe that is the number) well anyway, a large majority believe in a God. A large majority don't believe in the other things you mentioned. On top of the fact that the "week" I referred to was just pointing out that the same amount on each theory. Not specifically a week.

corvus_corax · Mar 2, 2005

Arikay said:
If that was so, some schools might be teaching the evils of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide.
Is it ok to teach false information in science class just because the majority believes it?

hehe....
I had my teenage son believing that DHMO was the evil to be banished from the world.
He even convinced his friends of the deadly threat that this chemical poses (and nobody was willing to drank the sample I provided ).

Fun little experiment

joebudda · Mar 2, 2005

ChristianCenturion said:
The mirror was rhetorical, but I submit that the uniqueness of your DNA, the uniqueness of your fingerprint, the pattern of your iris, everything that makes each one of use unique, yet that unexplained thing that makes us the same is better explained by the 'theory' that I believe vs. the one that you believe.

So you claim that uniqueness is proof of creationism? Wouldnt these subtle differences (mutations) add more weight to evolution? If these subtle changes (mutations) continually and randomly occur, couldnt it make sense that we are all in a continual possess of evolving?

ChristianCenturion said:
No, it was to nudge you into the real world of thought and science instead of letting you and others hide in that little box that's being referred here as the only domain of science.
IOW - It is a small citation that refutes what you and others have been claiming to be the small boundaries of 'science' and if one wishes to get technical, we could always break down the original meaning of the word science or simply look up the definitions http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm where science is seen to be more than what a few posters here have failed to confine it as... ad nauseam.
No offense, but it was that side that wanted to get 'technical' over what science is or isn't... and it comes back to bite.

You completely dodged the question.

What are we using as a standard to judge what is or is not complex?

Phinehas · Mar 4, 2005

(talking about the odds of evolution, spontaneous generation happening)

Electric Sceptic said:
There are no figures. We cannot possibly calculate any because there are too many unknowns.

So what you're saying is that according to what we know of the laws of physics it's impossible, that all the figures given for the odds of spontaneus generation/evolution thus far are beyond the impossible mark, and that there are no reasons you (nor anyone else) know(s) of that make it possible; therefore there are too many unknowns. I see... Talk about faith...
Well maybe your unknowns just don't exsist. Ever think of that?

(talking about the law of causality and the law of entropy being used by competant authors and professors- and whackos too)

Electric Sceptic said:
They are? Where? I've never heard or read either of them used.

Maybe you should get out more...
I'll make it easy for you. No effort involved, just click.
Google search on Law of Causality

Google search on Law of Entropy

Electric Sceptic said:
This is complete nonsense. What we are really dealing with here is you incorrectly quoting scientific "laws" that don't exist. I've no idea what the "Law of Entropy" might entail , but the "Law of Causality" (if such existed) has been falsified, since causality doesn't apply at the quantum level or inside a singularity (or, I believe, during Planck Time).

If you're going to quote non-existent "laws", don't expect people to ask what they are (which is precisely what I did).

About the "non-existant" laws, please see above links. (Red faced yet?)

As far as causality, to my knowledge, there are actually three popular schools of thought (and one other I know of) on causality in quantum mechanics. I'm kind of partial to the third (and fourth) one.

Three Responses from Physicists. In the face of the difficulties of interpreting these results in the sense of traditional notions of causality, physicists developed a number of responses, which can be conveniently divided into three groups.

* Planck, Einstein and von Laue adopted the Conservative Response. According to this view, quantum mechanics was incomplete in the sense that it failed to specify the spatio-temporal trajectories of the quantum systems. The ability of physicists to predict the precise trajectories of particles from a set of initial conditions and of known laws was seen as the hallmark of (classical) physics. The trouble with this view is that it stands firmly in the shadow of the Laplacean demon. Laplace had identified causality and predictive determinism. Unwittingly, both Planck and Einstein argued for a retention of the Laplacean identification of determinism and causality.

* Heisenberg, Bohr and Pauli adopted the Radical Response. This view leads to the rejection of the notion of causality in quantum mechanics. The argument proceeds from the experimental failure of predictive determinism to the adoption of acausality in quantum mechanics. Ironically, this view also operates under the shadow of the Laplacean demon. The reason given for adopting acausality, is the validity of the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations in quantum mechanics. The indeterminacy principle has served generations of physicists (and philosophers) to conclude that quantum mechanistic is acausal. There are two scenarios. The antecedent conditions of the state of a quantum mechanical system cannot be fully known experimentally (either momentum or position, energy levels or time in energy state can be measured accurately). The consequent conditions of the quantum system, after interference with the measurement apparatus, cannot be predicted with precision. Ergo: the law of causality fails to apply in quantum mechanics.

* Sommerfeld, de Broglie and the later Born adopted the Philosophical Response. This view leads to a separation of the notions of causality and determinism. It holds that even though determinism fails, causal accounts may still be given in quantum mechanics. This required a notion of probabilistic causality.[2] A probabilistic notion of causality no longer satisfies the demand for precise spatio-temporal prediction of trajectories. Individual atoms in an atom beam, split in a Stern-Gerlach apparatus, have a 50% chance of travelling along the upper or the lower trajectory. But it is still possible to give a causal account of the splitting of the atom beam and the chances of individual atoms to travel along the split beams. Similarly many of the famous experiments, which established quantum mechanics, give rise to causal accounts: the Frank-Hertz experiment (1914), the Stern-Gerlach experiments (1920), Compton Scattering (1923) and the Davison-Germer experiment (1927) can all be given a causal interpretation, based on the notion of probabilistic causality. A thought experiment due to de Broglie's perfectly illustrates this new notion of causality.

These three theories, as far as I've gathered also don't take into account Stephen Hawking's concept of "imaginary time", which, if it does exsist, puts a whole new face on things. It would dictate that "cause" and "effect" doesn't need to be explicitly (and feebly) defined as merely within our own observable dimension of time. IMHO, that partucular view of cause and effect (merely within our own observable dimension of time) is narrow and pitiful, lacking the "out of the box" thinking required for quantum mechanics. Just my opinion.

Ganymede · Mar 4, 2005

Shane Roach said:
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.

Police officres do not often directly witness murders, but are able, through the application of science to determine the events that lead up to the crime with a high degree of accuracy. It is not necessary for us to directly observe an event for us to be able to tell what happened and how. Just because no witnesses the big bang does not mean we cant tell that it did happen.

Clarity · Mar 8, 2005

I sometimes think people underestimate and do not fully grasp what the theory of evolution is actually teaching. It is something alot greater and alot more than just a scientific theory. It basically teaches that
1. The world evolved randomly through the big bang
2. People evolved randomly from bacteria and other animals
3. Therefore god did not create the world and to believe that he exists is absurd as evolution explains him away.

What is being taught is that God did not and could not have created the world it is basically a rather subtle way of teaching people about atheism. This is alot more than just a scientific theory what you believe with regard to this will affect your entire outlook and philosophy on life. Someone who disbelieves in god due to evolution will have a completely different outlook on the purpose and meaning of life than someone who believes that god created the world, they will also have different moral values. When evolution is taught children are being brainwashed to believe that all we are is one great big cosmic accident with no ultimate meaning or purpose other than to pass on your genes this will profoundly affect their outlook on life as well as the way they live.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously said in his famous novel the Brothers Karamazov
"If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."
In the book the main character murders his father and then he tries to justify this to himself and he finds that the only way to do this is if he strongly disbelieves in Gods existence and he can come up with some reasons why murdering his father was right such as his father neglected him as a boy, he was a cruel alcoholic etc. However no matter how hard he tries he can never fully convince himself of his innocence because as another writer tolstoy points out
"There is one evident, indubitable manifestation of the Divinity, and that is the laws of right which are made known to the world through revelation. ". The point of this illustration is that if people are taught that God doesn't exist then anything is permitted and if there is no God as children are being taught to believe through evolution this means that values such as love, friendship and kindness are a waste of time and if you can get away with something that benefits you even though it is wrong then you should do it whether is be murder, stealing or lying, after all, life is all about survival of the fittest and you won't get anywhere by being nice. If you don't believe me then look at statistics for divorce, as people have stopped believing in God due to influences such as evolution marriage has been devalued as it is no longer a holy institution put in place by a caring god but is just a way to pass on your genes and commitment is no longer important but it is all about what can marriage give me, there has also been an increase in sexual promiscuity leading to increased teenage pregnancies and an increased incidence of sexually transmitted disease because people no longer believe in any sort of absolute moral code because if there is no god you can do whatever you want and will never have to answer for your sins because once you die thats it you cease to exist. Other factors influenced by the increased belief in evolution and the decreased belief in god are wider acceptance of homosexuality, wider acceptance of pornography, higher rates of violent crime, more people believing abortion and euthanasia are acceptable etc.

In conclusion what you believe with regard to the origin of the world will greatly effect your philosophy/outlook on life. Evolution being taught in schools while creation is not is a way of shoving atheism down the throats of children by trying to brainwash them and make them disbelieve in God by telling them that science has proved evolution despite the fact that they are never taught any evidence for evolution they are just told they have to accept it becuase it is true and are discouraged from investigating it for themselves.

SnowBear · Mar 8, 2005

Clarity said:
I sometimes think people underestimate and do not fully grasp what the theory of evolution is actually teaching. It is something alot greater and alot more than just a scientific theory.

Your statements show a lack of a basic understanding of the basic principles of evolution and cosmology. You would do well to study these topics so as to avoid this in the future.

It basically teaches that
1. The world evolved randomly through the big bang

Cosmology and evolution are two separate and unrelated disciplines.

Evolution is specific to biological organisms. When last I looked the sun, stars, planets and the basic building blocks of matter were not biological in nature.

2. People evolved randomly from bacteria and other animals

The theory of evolution is based on natural selection, not randomness. That selection is NOT a random process, it is cumulative

What you are trying to claim is equivalent to saying that Stephen King produces novel after novel by randomly hitting keys on his computer keyboard.

3. Therefore god did not create the world and to believe that he exists is absurd as evolution explains him away.

Evolution says nothing about any Deity or any form of Divine intervention. What you seem upset about is that you personally have trouble reconciling your personal interpretation of the bible with the fact of evolution. This is not a failing of the theory of evolution.

What is being taught is that God did not and could not have created the world it is basically a rather subtle way of teaching people about atheism.

What is being taught is the evidence for evolution, the fact that such evidence exists and the fact that beyond the belief of individual the literalist interpretation of the myth of Genesis has no evidence to support it.

As noted the theory of evolution makes no mention of any Divine being and makes no assumption regarding the existence of any such being.

This is alot more than just a scientific theory what you believe with regard to this will affect your entire outlook and philosophy on life. Someone who disbelieves in god due to evolution will have a completely different outlook on the purpose and meaning of life than someone who believes that god created the world, they will also have different moral values.

You seem to be upset about the prospect that individuals will think differently or believe differently than you believe.

When evolution is taught children are being brainwashed to believe that all we are is one great big cosmic accident with no ultimate meaning or purpose other than to pass on your genes this will profoundly affect their outlook on life as well as the way they live.

I know of no specific individual much less any atheist who believes this. Again you seem less concerned about truth than in promoting the beliefs of your particular cult/sect.

Is this a reason then to lie to children, to brainwash children, to teach them that the myths of Christianity are true?

Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously said in his famous novel the Brothers Karamazov
"If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."
In the book the main character murders his father and then he tries to justify this to himself and he finds that the only way to do this is if he strongly disbelieves in Gods existence and he can come up with some reasons why murdering his father was right such as his father neglected him as a boy, he was a cruel alcoholic etc. However no matter how hard he tries he can never fully convince himself of his innocence because as another writer tolstoy points out

Of course no fictional Christian character ever commits murder or child abuse.

"There is one evident, indubitable manifestation of the Divinity,

Isis?
Mithras?
Krishna?

Quan Yin?

and that is the laws of right which are made known to the world through revelation. ".

Leaving the question of just why an all powerful, all knowing etc.etc. Deity would have to rely on a book to get his message out completely unanswered.

The point of this illustration is that if people are taught that God doesn't exist then anything is permitted

First: not what is being taught at all.

Second: even if we pretend the Christian God existseverything is still permited.

and if there is no God as children are being taught to believe through evolution this means that values such as love, friendship and kindness are a waste of time and if you can get away with something that benefits you even though it is wrong then you should do it whether is be murder, stealing or lying, after all, life is all about survival of the fittest and you won't get anywhere by being nice.

Which is not terribly different than the teachings of Christianity. Which teaches that friendship outside of your particular sect/cult is futile as your friends outside of yoru sect/cult will be condemned to hell for eternity. It teaches that if you can biblically justify killing or lying or theft then they are all right to do because getting to heaven is based on belief not how you behave.

If you don't believe me then look at statistics for divorce, as people have stopped believing in God due to influences such as evolution marriage has been devalued as it is no longer a holy institution put in place by a caring god but is just a way to pass on your genes and commitment is no longer important but it is all about what can marriage give me,

Statistics show that born again Christians have the highest divorce rate followed closely by Mormons, Catholics and Lutherans. Atheists and agnostics have significantly lower divorce rates than Christians. Barna Research Group, 1999-DEC-21,

there has also been an increase in sexual promiscuity leading to increased teenage pregnancies and an increased incidence of sexually transmitted disease because people no longer believe in any sort of absolute moral code because if there is no god you can do whatever you want and will never have to answer for your sins because once you die thats it you cease to exist.

Interestingly enough the transmission rate of sexually transmitted disease is lower today than it was fifty years ago.

Talaro, K and Talaro, A. Foundations in Microbiology

Other factors influenced by the increased belief in evolution and the decreased belief in god are wider acceptance of homosexuality,

As well as greater acceptance of people of different colorsand we wouldnt want that now would we?

wider acceptance of pornography, higher rates of violent crime, more people believing abortion and euthanasia are acceptable etc.

Doubtful you could show any causal connection between any of these things and evolution or even lack of religion.

Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

Well-Known Member

HI

Veteran / Tuebor

Believe

Veteran / Tuebor

Just a Mom

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

HI

Veteran / Tuebor

Just a Mom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

HI

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Newbie

Just Some Guy

Senior Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency