Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[SquareC]

I think some people are just perpetually grasping at straws......

 

[Phred]

I sometimes think people underestimate and do not fully grasp what the theory of evolution is actually teaching.

As you do not.

.
​

 

[Arikay]

Snowbear, great reply.

I have noticed an odd nostalgia by some creationists. A generalization that the teaching of evolution is some how destroying everyone's morals by saying there isn't a God. Assuming that peoples morals were good before evolution. Plenty of atrocities were committed way before evolution was thought up.

It seems that most people who complain about evolution have never bothered to research it from proper sources. Unfortunately trusting creationist groups to provide them with accurate information. I find it ironic when these groups lie about evolution and then attack it for supporting immoral values.

 

[placebo2]

... if people are taught that God doesn't exist then anything is permitted ...

Let me try to summarize your post:

Teaching evolution --> promotes atheism --> which leads to: divorce; sexual promiscuity; teenage pregnancies; sexually transmitted disease; homosexuality, pornography; violent crime; abortion; euthanasia; and overall societal decay.

If creationism is taught in school will divorce rates fall? Will sexual promiscuity decrease? Will teenage pregnancies drop? Will STDs, homosexuality, pornography, violent crime, abortion, and euthanasia diminish? Will society stop decaying?

Are you aware of any studies that show that believers have lower divorce rates; are less promiscuous; have fewer teenage pregnancies; and so on than non-believers? (I think you are in for a surprise should you research this.)

Since about 90% of the US population claims to believe in God why are all of the above issues problems in society today? Do the 10% of non-believers exert that much influence over the believers? Or, are many of the 90% that claim they are believers frauds?

Since so many Christians want creationism taught in the schools, and "Under God" in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" on our currency, does that mean that it takes the power and the sanction of the state to legitimize belief in God? Is theism too weak to stand on its own? Does it need the power of the state to give it credence?

 

[Johnnz]

It's not just Christians who want something other than classic evolution taught in schools. There are many scientists who have been saying for years that evolution is not stacking up scientifically. They are not advocating teaching creation froma Christian perspective. They just want the many deficiencies in classic evolutionary presentations to be pionted out to students.


John
NZ

 

[Arikay]

Who are these scientists?
What are their degrees?
When did they make these statements?

What exactly are these deficiencies in classic evolution?

It's not just Christians who want something other than classic evolution taught in schools. There are many scientists who have been saying for years that evolution is not stacking up scientifically. They are not advocating teaching creation froma Christian perspective. They just want the many deficiencies in classic evolutionary presentations to be pionted out to students.


John
NZ

 

[Clarity]

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

However natural selection relies solely on random genetic mutations (which are very unusual and unlikely to be beneficial) and so evolution could be classified as a random process depending on what way you look at it.

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.

What you are trying to claim is equivalent to saying that if you take a small organism that evolves randomly through genetic mutation then left to itself, it will eventually will end up producing a human, this is basically what evolution is claiming, I find this very hard to swallow and I don't think that it makes any logical sense as we never see anything like this happening in real life.

Cosmology and evolution are two separate and unrelated disciplines.

The two usually go hand in hand and both evolution and the big bang are taught in schools.

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

Actually what I was pointing out was that the theory of evolution assumes that there is no diety, it assumes atheism and assumes that the existence of the world can be explained without reference to a deity and this is the religious aspect of evolution that I was talking about.

Since about 90% of the US population claims to believe in God why are all of the above issues problems in society today

I very much doubt this statistic is true, but to be more specific when talked of God I was referring specifically to the christian god not any other god.

 

[SnowBear]

However natural selection relies solely on random genetic mutations (which are very unusual and unlikely to be beneficial) and so evolution could be classified as a random process depending on what way you look at it.

Again….your posts shows a basic lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.



Mutations may occur but they art no the driving force of evolution or even necessary for evolution.



Natural selection involves two interrelated phenomena:

adaptation - which means that over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.

speciation - meaning that Over the course of time, the number of species multiplies; that is, a single species can give rise to two or more descendant species.

What you are trying to claim is equivalent to saying that if you take a small organism that evolves randomly through genetic mutation then left to itself, it will eventually will end up producing a human, this is basically what evolution is claiming,

Please do not misrepresent my posts.



I noted several times that evolution is not random rather it is cumulative.

I find this very hard to swallow and I don't think that it makes any logical sense as we never see anything like this happening in real life.

Your personal liking or disliking of evolution does not effect its validity.



As for you claim that evolution is unobserved that is also false.

Take for example the classic case of the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Prior to 1800, the typical moth of the species had a light pattern. These moths roosted on light colored tree barks and were effectively camouflaged. During the industrial revolution, soot and other industrial wastes darkened tree trunks. The moths became un-camouflaged and subject to predation by birds almost to the point of extinction. In 1819, the first melanic morph (a dark peppered moth, one that would be camouflaged on soot covered bark; by 1886 dark peppered moths were the norm illustrating rapid evolutionary change.



A second example would he the rat snake, Elaphe obsoleta, this snake has recognizably different populations in different locales of eastern North America. These populations all comprise one species, because mating can occur between adjacent populations, causing the species to share a common gene pool.

Galapagos finches are the famous example from Darwin's voyage. Each island of the Galapagos that Darwin visited had its own kind of finch (14 in all), found nowhere else in the world. Some had beaks adapted for eating large seeds, others for small seeds, some had parrot-like beaks for feeding on buds and fruits, and some had slender beaks for feeding on small insects. One used a thorn to probe for insect larvae in wood, like some woodpeckers do. (Six were ground-dwellers, and eight were tree finches.) (This diversification into different ecological roles, or niches, is thought to be necessary to permit the coexistence of multiple species, to Darwin, it appeared that each was slightly modified from an original colonist, currently identified as a finch on the mainland of South America, some 600 miles to the east. It is probable that adaptive radiation led to the formation of so many species because other birds were few or absent, leaving empty niches to fill; and because the numerous islands of the Galapagos provided ample opportunity for geographic isolation.

The fossil lineage of the horse provides a remarkable demonstration of directional succession. The full lineage is quite complicated and is not just a simple line from the tiny dawn horse Hyracotherium of the early Eocene, to today's familiar Equus. Overall, though, the horse has evolved from a small-bodied ancestor built for moving through woodlands and thickets to its long- legged descendent built for speed on the open grassland. This evolution has involved well- documented changes in teeth, leg length, and toe structure

The two usually go hand in hand and both evolution and the big bang are taught in schools.

Two separate and unrelated ideas, two separate and unrelated theories.

Actually what I was pointing out was that the theory of evolution assumes that there is no diety,

No where does the theory of evolution make such a claim.

it assumes atheism and assumes that the existence of the world can be explained without reference to a deity and this is the religious aspect of evolution that I was talking about.

Untrue. The theory of evolution makes not reference or assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of any Deity.

I very much doubt this statistic is true,

References were provided. Not liking what the statistics have to say does not change their validity.


Perhaps you cold provide competing statistics on the high divorce rate among born again Christians.

but to be more specific when talked of God I was referring specifically to the christian god not any other god.

I don’t think anyone doubted that.



could you indulge us all and explain just why creationism should be limited only to Christian mythology, why not include Hindu mythology and Native American mythology and so on as legitimate alternatives to natural selection as well?

 

[Johnnz]

Who are these scientists?
What are their degrees?
When did they make these statements?

What exactly are these deficiencies in classic evolution?

Have a look at Lee Strobel's book - The Case for A Creator. It is a christian book, but contains a good bibliogaphy and reference to many scientists who have legitiamte questions about the adequacy of many aspects of classic evolution. Several scientists referred to in the book are not Christians by the way.

John
NZ

 

[Arikay]

A couple comments,

However natural selection relies solely on random genetic mutations (which are very unusual and unlikely to be beneficial) and so evolution could be classified as a random process depending on what way you look at it.

Think of it this way. Scoop up a random amount of dirt and rocks, now put them in a sifter and shake it. Although the dirt and rocks were random, the sifter organizes them based on size.

Actually what I was pointing out was that the theory of evolution assumes that there is no diety, it assumes atheism and assumes that the existence of the world can be explained without reference to a deity and this is the religious aspect of evolution that I was talking about.

Evolution, just like all of science, is agnostic. It doesn't assume there is no God. It assumes that the process of evolution can take place without supernatural intervention and that any supernatural intervention can't be studied. It is possible for God to tinker with evolution in unknown ways. For example, he could cause a mutation.

Take the flood. Many people believe that rain is produced through a natural cycle, but that doesn't mean God didn't cause the rain that created the flood.

 

[Arikay]

I have been meaning to read this book, although the reviews I have read aren't promising.

However, that doesn't really answer the question on hand. Can you post someone of these questions?
I'm looking for detail as I have heard the comment that "many scientists question evolution" but it often turns out that it is either a handful of creationist scientist and most aren't in the field of biology, or it's a bunch of old quotes that are no longer valid. The questions sometimes turn out to be quote mined or generic creationist claims.
Which is why details can help sort out the difference.

Edit:
Looking the book up on amazon we see, "(including Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe)" I hope his lineup gets better than this. Meyer and Behe are both IDists and Wells is a creationist known for attacking strawmen.

Have a look at Lee Strobel's book - The Case for A Creator. It is a christian book, but contains a good bibliogaphy and reference to many scientists who have legitiamte questions about the adequacy of many aspects of classic evolution. Several scientists referred to in the book are not Christians by the way.

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

It will be important to distinguish between creationist scientists and scientists who support a Creator. Non Christian critics may lump the two together to bolster their own viewpoint that science and Christianity are irreconcilable, this often happening due to a prior philosophical comittment to materialism.

What is important is to be acquainted with the views out there, and what they are based on. It is especially important to differentiate genuine scientific from a belief system that calls on science to validate those beliefs. Then, you can reach your own conclusions.

I would also note that a reasonable Christian belief is based on historical, evidential, experiential, literary and sound scientific grounds. It is the coherence given by these field, taken together that can substantiate a decsion to become a Christian.

John
NZ

 

[Arikay]

Yes, you are right, wells is an IDist not a creationist.

Are the Icons of Wells, and the claims Behe the deficiencies in classic evolution you were talking about?
It is important to be acquainted with the views out there, in which case, have you research any of their claims?

Can you provide any evidence that creationism or IDism should be taught along side evolution, or of errors in the current theory of evolution?

It will be important to distinguish between creationist scientists and scientists who support a Creator. Non Christian critics may lump the two together to bolster their own viewpoint that science and Christianity are irreconcilable, this often happening due to a prior philosophical comittment to materialism.

What is important is to be acquainted with the views out there, and what they are based on. It is especially important to differentiate genuine scientific from a belief system that calls on science to validate those beliefs. Then, you can reach your own conclusions.

I would also note that a reasonable Christian belief is based on historical, evidential, experiential, literary and sound scientific grounds. It is the coherence given by these field, taken together that can substantiate a decsion to become a Christian.

John
NZ

 

[Clarity]

Again….your posts shows a basic lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.

Mutations may occur but they art no the driving force of evolution or even necessary for evolution.

Natural selection involves two interrelated phenomena:

adaptation - which means that over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.

speciation - meaning that Over the course of time, the number of species multiplies; that is, a single species can give rise to two or more descendant species.

I think it is you who have a large lack of basic knowledge. Evolution clearly does require a large amout of genetic mutation


How can a monkey turn into a human unless there is genetic mutation???
The genetic code of these two animals is different in many places and for monkeys to develop entirely different characteristics genetic changes have to occurr a monkey does not have the genetic material to produce a human brain or to walk upright like a human and its skeleton is different from that of a human the only way it can gain this is through random genetic mutations.

For a basic guide try

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution1.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml

As for the peppered moth story it was badly done and inaccurate and does not conclusively prove natural selection:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp

 

[SnowBear]

How can a monkey turn into a human unless there is genetic mutation???

It doesn’t and no evolutionist has eve claimed it does.

The genetic code of these two animals is different in many places

This is why monkeys and humans are two different animals.

and for monkeys to develop entirely different characteristics genetic changes have to occurr a monkey does not have the genetic material to produce a human brain or to walk upright like a human and its skeleton is different from that of a human the only way it can gain this is through random genetic mutations.

Of course they don’t which is why no one has ever claimed that monkeys evolved into human beings.

As for the peppered moth story it was badly done and inaccurate and does not conclusively prove natural selection:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...21/i3/moths.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.asp

for Christian sites these guys sure spend a lot of time ignoring the “thou shall not bare false witness” commandment.

thanks but I'll stick with honest resources.

 

[Chloe Williams]

Why do Christians want creationism taught in public schools?

I don't know if any of what I am about to say has been said already because I didn't read all of the 62 pages of this thread (and if it has I am sorry for repeating it). With that being said:

I want creationism taught in school because not only is it an important part of my life (and all the other christians at school), but because it seems like the fair thing to do. I mean, when I was in Jr. High, we were taught about the Big Bang theory and a couple other theories, and creationism was metioned maybe once. I think that if you are going to teach about the "main theories" of how the world began creationism should be mentioned just as much as the non-religious theories.

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

 

[Alarum]

I don't know if any of what I am about to say has been said already because I didn't read all of the 62 pages of this thread (and if it has I am sorry for repeating it). With that being said:

I want creationism taught in school because not only is it an important part of my life (and all the other christians at school), but because it seems like the fair thing to do. I mean, when I was in Jr. High, we were taught about the Big Bang theory and a couple other theories, and creationism was metioned maybe once. I think that if you are going to teach about the "main theories" of how the world began creationism should be mentioned just as much as the non-religious theories.

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

There's actually an arguement for this. Schools often teach theories like the Ether and spontanious generation to demonstrate how science changes and evolves as new information is introduced, and what flawed methodology results in. Creationism is another theory that can be easily added to that list.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I don't know if any of what I am about to say has been said already because I didn't read all of the 62 pages of this thread (and if it has I am sorry for repeating it). With that being said:

I want creationism taught in school because not only is it an important part of my life (and all the other christians at school), but because it seems like the fair thing to do. I mean, when I was in Jr. High, we were taught about the Big Bang theory and a couple other theories, and creationism was metioned maybe once. I think that if you are going to teach about the "main theories" of how the world began creationism should be mentioned just as much as the non-religious theories.

*~*Chloe Williams*~*

Sorry, but we're talking about science classes here. That means science should be taught in them, not religious beliefs. By all means, we could use creationism to illustrate pseudo-science, and demonstrate how beliefs are proven false (as creationism has been), but I don't think that's what you're after.

Bottom line: creationism is not science, it is religious belief. Religious beliefs have no place in a science class.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

Sorry, but we're talking about science classes here. That means science should be taught in them, not religious beliefs. By all means, we could use creationism to illustrate pseudo-science, and demonstrate how beliefs are proven false (as creationism has been), but I don't think that's what you're after.

Bottom line: creationism is not science, it is religious belief. Religious beliefs have no place in a science class.

If that is your standard, then big bang is not a science either. Science can be proven, an experiment can be set up to duplicate it. Guess what - big bang can not be proven, it can not be duplicated either. There is no proof for big bang, so according to your standards it HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE CLASS. Come on, let's be fair here. Either teach them both, or don't teach either!

It takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing - than to believe that something came from something. If you look at a watch do you think "oh, there must have been an explosion and all the particles slammed into each other"? No. You know there is a watchmaker. A human being is 1 billion times more complex than a watch. To believe that atoms collided (where did the atoms come from?) and created life is the same as believing a whirlwind hit a junk yard and created a 747.

 

[Johnnz]

Yes, you are right, wells is an IDist not a creationist.

Are the Icons of Wells, and the claims Behe the deficiencies in classic evolution you were talking about?
It is important to be acquainted with the views out there, in which case, have you research any of their claims?

Can you provide any evidence that creationism or IDism should be taught along side evolution, or of errors in the current theory of evolution?

There are several different areas where classic evolution struggles.

The Big Bang. We no longer have an infite period of time in a continuosly expanding and contracting universe, which was the previouslyheld theory. There have been only about 400 million years since the earth cooled enough to support life. Most of the complex animal life we now have arose in the Cambrian period. Fossil records giving evidence for transitory forms is all but non existant. The sudden appearance of mutliple and complex forms of life has not been explained as yet as demonstrably supporting evolution.

The development of science post Darwin into cellular biology. The complexity found in living cells stretches credulity for mere chance as the cuase of sucg complexity. This is beher's main arguement.

Fossil Evidence. We have millions of fossils and fossil species. Their evidence for transitional forms is not impressive.

There is no widely held theory of the origin of life held amongst scientists. This is a problem area.

More details are contained in the many publications now available. If a good education requires people to judge intelligently between options, then as full a set of information as possible should be given. A popular name for one sided presentations is propaganda.

John
NZ