Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Katydid]

we hold children hostage to teach them everything that they are taught in school.

oh my, you are reminding me of another person I debated with. Take one sentence and make your argument out of it. Forget the fact that I already explained what I meant IN MY POST!

(I use the word hostage loosly, not as an offensive concept, but they don't have the choice to walk out during that class).

Now, considering that as my definition, YES we do hold children hostage to teach them. OK now, moving on.

If we drop evolutionary theory from the list because children are hostage, then we might as well drop everything else...well, we might as well just abolish school altogether. Education's not that important, is it?

History has already occured, and it is not under debate. Any GOOD history teacher will stimulate the minds of the children by asking, not stating, why things happen. Math is fairly well set. There isn't much dispute that 1+1=2. Everyone pretty much agrees on that one. Well, spelling, I am pretty sure that most people agree that "i" comes before "e" except after "c" or when it sounds like "a" as in neighbor and weigh. So that isn't a disputed issue by the majority of the population either. OK, what else do we study, OH hey, how about the fact that the heart beats, thereby pumping blood through the body, okay that is science and pretty much undisputed. I didn't say to stop teaching, I said, save the controversial issues for when the children are OLDER, old enough to sift through it and decide for themselves.

Education's not that important, is it?

Education is extremely important, which is why it is extremely important to be picky about what we teach our children.

Pick any scientific theory - germ theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory

The only one of those that I learned about in HS was the theory of relativity, and I still don't fully comprehend that one. My point is, these are more advanced scientific ideas, and I KNOW that quantam theory isn't taught in high school, why not save the theory of evolution for college as well?

People keep bringing this up because the idea of a flat earth is analogous to creationism. Both are viewpoints that can be gained from a literal interpretation of the bible, and both have been proven wrong.

You can't PROVE creation wrong, without PROVING that God doesn't exist. I'd love to see someone show me that one.

Also, please show me chapter and verse of where the Bible states that the Earth is flat.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

oh my, you are reminding me of another person I debated with. Take one sentence and make your argument out of it. Forget the fact that I already explained what I meant IN MY POST!

Sorry, but I didn't "take on sentence and make my argument out of it". You said something and I used it, precisely as you explained you meant it.

(I use the word hostage loosly, not as an offensive concept, but they don't have the choice to walk out during that class).

Now, considering that as my definition, YES we do hold children hostage to teach them. OK now, moving on.

So why are you complaining when that's just what I said?

History has already occured, and it is not under debate.

Of course it's under debate. It constantly is. Just off the top of my head, in recent years there has been much controversy and debate about (for example) the role of the Native American in early American history. Not to mention the holocaust-deniers, who are only to anxious to debate whether or not the holocaust even occurred.

Any GOOD history teacher will stimulate the minds of the children by asking, not stating, why things happen. Math is fairly well set. There isn't much dispute that 1+1=2. Everyone pretty much agrees on that one. Well, spelling, I am pretty sure that most people agree that "i" comes before "e" except after "c" or when it sounds like "a" as in neighbor and weigh. So that isn't a disputed issue by the majority of the population either. OK, what else do we study, OH hey, how about the fact that the heart beats, thereby pumping blood through the body, okay that is science and pretty much undisputed. I didn't say to stop teaching, I said, save the controversial issues for when the children are OLDER, old enough to sift through it and decide for themselves.

No, you didn't say to "save the controversial issues for when the children are older." You said "because of the diversity and the fact that you are holding children hostage to teach it." However, the 'diversity' is merely that creationists don't like it. Evolutionary theory is (to quote you above) "science and pretty much undisputed" - within scientific circles. The ONLY people who dispute evolutionary theory are those with a religious axe to grind. To scientists - the people who really know - it's about as controversial as gravity.

Education is extremely important, which is why it is extremely important to be picky about what we teach our children.

Agreed.

My point is, these are more advanced scientific ideas, and I KNOW that quantam theory isn't taught in high school, why not save the theory of evolution for college as well?

Evolution is not a "more advanced scientific idea." It's extremely basic, and the the foundation of ALL of modern biology. Certain complex areas (such as quantum mechanics) are, as you say, left for more advanced classes (such as college), but there is no reason to leave evolutionary theory to this time. In fact, it would be harmful, because it would prevent accurate teaching of biology.

You can't PROVE creation wrong, without PROVING that God doesn't exist. I'd love to see someone show me that one.

Oops, a strawman. Nobody's talking about proving CREATION wrong...we're talking about CREATIONISM, not creation. And creationISM has been proven wrong.

Also, please show me chapter and verse of where the Bible states that the Earth is flat.

What's the point of that? I'm sure you're as aware of the verses as I am. The fact is that people have believed the earth to be flat based on biblical verses that certainly imply it. You, today, quite happily acknowledge that when the bible talks of things that, taken literally, imply a flat earth (such as the 'corners of the earth' and Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the earth from a mountain), it was talking metaphorically or symbolically. That's fine. But you won't make the same concession to the creation myth in Genesis. Just as, today, people interpret that myth literally and say it is fact, so too did people once interpret biblical verses literally and state that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong too, just like today's creationists.

 

[Katydid]

But you won't make the same concession to the creation myth in Genesis

You make too many assumptions with too little information in that statement alone. If you read a few pages back you will see my stance on creation in general.

the role of the Native American in early American history. Not to mention the holocaust-deniers, who are only to anxious to debate whether or not the holocaust even occurred.

As far as the role of Native American history, unless someone is actually implying that this continent was devoid of all human life, then the rest is opinion. As long as they aren't teaching children opinion, then it is fine to discuss, hence my stating that a Good teacher will encourage those discussions. For the holocaust people, you are talking about a massive MINORITY. Whereas Creation is a Majority viewpoint.

No, you didn't say to "save the controversial issues for when the children are older."

6 posts up, that is exactly what I said:

What is your problem with saving that area of science for college level students?

and the the foundation of ALL of modern biology.

No offense, but I don't remember having to know ANYTHING about evolution, other than theory exists, to pass high school biology.

And creationISM has been proven wrong.

How??? I don't remember any news report "CREATIONISM PROVEN FALSE!" Or are you saying that because evolution has so much evidence, that it automatically PROVES Creationism wrong?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You make too many assumptions with too little information in that statement alone. If you read a few pages back you will see my stance on creation in general.

I've seen your stance.

As far as the role of Native American history, unless someone is actually implying that this continent was devoid of all human life, then the rest is opinion. As long as they aren't teaching children opinion, then it is fine to discuss, hence my stating that a Good teacher will encourage those discussions.

EVERYTHING taught is opinion. Opinions change over time.

For the holocaust people, you are talking about a massive MINORITY. Whereas Creation is a Majority viewpoint.

What does that have to do with anything? Truth is not decided by consensus.

No offense, but I don't remember having to know ANYTHING about evolution, other than theory exists, to pass high school biology.

Since I've no idea how old you are, where you went to school or anything else about your schooling history, I've no idea what relevance this has. The fact remains that evolutionary theory is the foundation of all modern biology.

How??? I don't remember any news report "CREATIONISM PROVEN FALSE!" Or are you saying that because evolution has so much evidence, that it automatically PROVES Creationism wrong?

"How?" Are you serious? Have you ever actually studied the subject? The flood didn't happen, speciation has been observed, ALL of the creationist claims which are falsifiable have been falsified.

 

[Katydid]

I've seen your stance.

By your comment:

That's fine. But you won't make the same concession to the creation myth in Genesis

you assume that I believe in 7 day creation. In fact I don't. I choose my position in this debate based on the fact, that just as I wouldn't want someone omitting my beliefs from curriculum just to suit their fancy and thinking at the time. I don't want to omit someone else's beliefs for that same reason.

As you stated, science is always proving and disproving things. How do we know that new information won't develop that makes evolution obsolete in many minds?

Oh and just so you know, we did discuss the "flat earth" in science, and we discussed the process by which it was disproven.

EVERYTHING taught is opinion. Opinions change over time.

1+1=2 is this an opinion or fact? See the thing is, we had a geometry teacher who actually showed us that 1+1=3, but it was based on a flaw. His challenge to us was to find the flaw. The point being, there are definitive facts. Facts that don't change. Therefore EVERYTHING is not opinion.

What does that have to do with anything? Truth is not decided by consensus.

Good, so your truth, is no more true than the next guys.

Oh and you already stated that EVERYTHING is opinion, so with that statement you just stated that evolution is opinion therefore it is no more truth or science than creation is.

Since I've no idea how old you are, where you went to school or anything else about your schooling history, I've no idea what relevance this has. The fact remains that evolutionary theory is the foundation of all modern biology.

I'm 27, I went to school in TN, and we were taught the theory of evolution. What I don't get is how it pertains to ALL biology. I don't remember discussing the evolution of the poor sheep before we carved into it's heart to see how it worked. Nor did we discuss the evolution of a frog before we cut the poor creature to bits. Oh and when we studied genetics I only remember a small portion of what was discussed to be even slightly related to evolution. My point is that, it is not essential for a 15 yr. old to know. They can choose to learn more about it at college if they so choose.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

you assume that I believe in 7 day creation. In fact I don't. I choose my position in this debate based on the fact, that just as I wouldn't want someone omitting my beliefs from curriculum just to suit their fancy and thinking at the time. I don't want to omit someone else's beliefs for that same reason.

Nor do I. And nobody's beliefs are being omitted. They are merely being omitted from subjects to which they are not applicable. If I have a non-science based belief, I've got no problem with it being omitted from science classes.

As you stated, science is always proving and disproving things. How do we know that new information won't develop that makes evolution obsolete in many minds?

Information may come to light that demonstrates evolutionary theory to be false. I would bet against it, but it might happen. That's how science works.

Oh and just so you know, we did discuss the "flat earth" in science, and we discussed the process by which it was disproven.

Great. If you want to add creationism to science classes as part of an overview of false beliefs and how science disproved them, I'm all for it.

1+1=2 is this an opinion or fact? See the thing is, we had a geometry teacher who actually showed us that 1+1=3, but it was based on a flaw. His challenge to us was to find the flaw. The point being, there are definitive facts. Facts that don't change. Therefore EVERYTHING is not opinion.

It is opinion - an opinion that, to the best of our knowledge, is a fact. EVERYTHING is opinion. Some opinions are more correct than others. Some opinions that we think now are correct are, no doubt, not correct.

Good, so your truth, is no more true than the next guys.

I don't have my own truth. Neither does the next guy.

Oh and you already stated that EVERYTHING is opinion, so with that statement you just stated that evolution is opinion therefore it is no more truth or science than creation is.

Everything is opinion. What this has to do with it being truth or science, I have no idea.

I'm 27, I went to school in TN, and we were taught the theory of evolution.

Which explains a great deal.

What I don't get is how it pertains to ALL biology. I don't remember discussing the evolution of the poor sheep before we carved into it's heart to see how it worked. Nor did we discuss the evolution of a frog before we cut the poor creature to bits. Oh and when we studied genetics I only remember a small portion of what was discussed to be even slightly related to evolution. My point is that, it is not essential for a 15 yr. old to know. They can choose to learn more about it at college if they so choose.

And it's not essential for a 15 yr. old to know history, or algebra, or calculus, or even biology, physics or chemistry.

 

[placebo2]

This word game of what is truth, fact, fantasy, or opinion can be played out forever. You can challenge science and the scientific method all you want, but you cannot deny the results. What do you think is the source of advances in medicine and nutrition that let us enjoy longer, healthier lives? What do you think is the source of advances in agriculture that let one farmer produce enough food for more than one hundred people? What do you think is the source of advances in aerospace that allow us to travel cross country in a few hours and even explore beyond our own planet?

You criticized science in general and evolution in particular in your prior post when you said, "... How do we know that new information won't develop that makes evolution obsolete in many minds? ..." I don't think you appreciate that what you see as a flaw in science is actually its strength. If new evidence is discovered that doesn't support current evolution theory, then the current theories will be either abandoned or modified. The beauty of the scientific method is that it accomodates the fact that new discoveries are always being made and that we can never know everything. In that regard theories evolve to better explain the past and to become better predictors of future events. Science is dynamic. Religion and dogma is static.

If Creation Theory is important to you put it in its proper context. Use it as part of your philosophy of life. Use it to develop your spiritual dimension. But, however you use it don't confuse it with science.

 

[Katydid]

Great. If you want to add creationism to science classes as part of an overview of false beliefs and how science disproved them, I'm all for it.

You can't "disprove" it. You can show evidence that suggests it isn't true, but you cannot disprove it. People can also find evidence that suggests that evolution isn't true. You can find evidence against all theories of creation, namely because NONE of US were there to see it occur.

I don't have my own truth. Neither does the next guy.

You have what you BELIEVE to be true. Just as a creationist BELIEVES creationism to be true.

Everything is opinion. What this has to do with it being truth or science, I have no idea.

In YOUR opinion creationism isn't science. In another person's mind it is. So, you can't discount another person's opinion as being less than yours if they are both JUST opinions.

Which explains a great deal.

How on earth does that explain ANYTHING. I went to a school that had a very high average score on State testing. We were in the top 10%. Now, if it is my age, well, I don't feel like a dinosaur yet, so I think you should explain your ideas. If it is the old "rednecks" stereotype, I suggest you visit before you judge. If I am misreading what that comment means, then please feel free to correct me. I would be glad to know how my home state or age has anything to do with this conversation.

 

[Katydid]

You criticized science in general and evolution in particular in your prior post when you said, "... How do we know that new information won't develop that makes evolution obsolete in many minds? ..." I don't think you appreciate that what you see as a flaw in science is actually its strength. If new evidence is discovered that doesn't support current evolution theory, then the current theories will be either abandoned or modified. The beauty of the scientific method is that it accomodates the fact that new discoveries are always being made and that we can never know everything. In that regard theories evolve to better explain the past and to become better predictors of future events. Science is dynamic. Religion and dogma is static.

It was not meant as an insult, but as a general statement. I am glad for scientific advancements and would never suggest otherwise. All I was saying, was we shouldn't throw out every theory because another theory pops up. We limit ourselves doing that.

If Creation Theory is important to you put it in its proper context. Use it as part of your philosophy of life. Use it to develop your spiritual dimension. But, however you use it don't confuse it with science

The point is, to a creationist, it is science. In yours and many other people's opinion it is not, but to someone who truly believes in it, it is science. There are scientists who work to prove it, just as there are scientists who work to prove evolution. Because you don't believe in that particular form of science, does not exclude it. These scientists search for the same kind of evidence that evolutionists look for. How can you look at a group of scientists, who use the same scientific method, to prove their theory and tell them they aren't studying science?

You can challenge science and the scientific method all you want, but you cannot deny the results.

I don't challenge the method or the study, just your limitation of what it includes.

I don't honestly think we will ever agree on this issue, but discussion is a way to hopefully gain an understanding into the other person's point of view. If you truly believe that I am discussing this to PROVE you wrong, or to change your mind, you are mistaken. I am merely trying to present a viewpoint in a way, that even if you don't agree, perhaps you can understand.

 

[Zlex]

It was not meant as an insult, but as a general statement. I am glad for scientific advancements and would never suggest otherwise. All I was saying, was we shouldn't throw out every theory because another theory pops up. We limit ourselves doing that.



The point is, to a creationist, it is science. In yours and many other people's opinion it is not, but to someone who truly believes in it, it is science. There are scientists who work to prove it, just as there are scientists who work to prove evolution. Because you don't believe in that particular form of science, does not exclude it. These scientists search for the same kind of evidence that evolutionists look for. How can you look at a group of scientists, who use the same scientific method, to prove their theory and tell them they aren't studying science?



I don't challenge the method or the study, just your limitation of what it includes.

I don't honestly think we will ever agree on this issue, but discussion is a way to hopefully gain an understanding into the other person's point of view. If you truly believe that I am discussing this to PROVE you wrong, or to change your mind, you are mistaken. I am merely trying to present a viewpoint in a way, that even if you don't agree, perhaps you can understand.

It has been written that the scientific discussion about the study of the life on this planet must perforce ignore God, because God is beyond our understanding, is immeasurable and unmeasurable, has an unpronounceable name and moves in mysterious ways. Science is not an investigation of God.

Dialectical energy is expended pointing out the flatly obvious that evolution does not disprove the supernatural – it is an explanation of the natural. It takes no position on God. Really lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseum. There may be confusion in some minds as to what “religion” is, but scientists are not confused about what science is. Considering our ability to fly around the world eight abreast while checking our email, we might consider that they have at least a clue about the functioning of the natural world – certainly more than those who insist that radiocarbon dating is a myth. Planck constant, not contant. Magnetic constant, not constant. The inverse square law has the same applicable value as wearing garlic to ward off vampires.

Just naked sweaty apes lathering and rinsing. It’s all one to me. When going in for hernia surgery, who could possibly notice the difference between a witch doctor wearing a crude wooden mask and shaking a horse’s tail, and a surgeon?

Making rules for God? Science resolutely refuses to engage in such an enterprise, as you have observed, time and time again. It is confronted with those who insist that God must included, and that God plays by rules and data they invent. And away we go. Of course, these people need to be taken seriously – after all, every naked sweaty ape is entitled to their opinion.

I have no desire to discuss a “scientific method” for proving God’s existence, or the way in which he must have created the world. That is beyond science capabilities and mission, and is more than a little goofy. That cuts both ways.

Personally, I am afraid to let such people drive, much less vote. Apparently F=MA is "just a theory."

Is that really where you want us to be? Where a bunch of dimwits who don't even know what the word "evolution" means gets input into how it is taught, because some shaman said science is evil and godless, and they are afraid of the thunder Gods?

 

[SnowBear]

In YOUR OPINION creationism is a lie. Whereas in a Creationists OPINION evolution is a lie.

Please don’t misrepresent what I said.



Evolution has evidence to support it, creationism does not. Saying that a theory that has evidence to support it is the same as a “theory” that has no evidence to support it is lying.

My whole point is that over half of the U.S. alone, ascribe to A religion. And most religions believe in A form of creation.

Now, as a Christian, I don't want the Biblical account of creation taught exclusively, but to teach that some believe in Creation, to state the ideas of Creation is only fair to the over 50% of the population that believe it.[/quote]
The fact that a religion is popular does not make the mythology of that religion into science nor does it make the mythology of that religion true.


Similar numbers could be posted for the number of people believing in astrology. Odes this mean that one’s personality and destiny is determined by the position the planets of the solar system? Does this belief turn astrology into science?

You are absolutely correct. But, you cannot punish everyone due to a few people's extreme views. That would be like me saying that some extreme athiests who believe that ALL parents who teach their children religion are child abusers, is a comment that ALL athiests believe. That would be untrue, but there are a few athiests who do believe this.

You have just presented an argument against your position. Simply because something is believed does not mean it is true or that hit should be disguised as science and taught to children.

The point is, we live in a country where the majority rules and the minority have rights. Unfortunately it often goes the other way, where we try to accomodate the rights of the minority to the point of penalizing the majority. In this case, the minority is given the right to it's viewpoint of evolution, whereas the majority (that over 50% that adhere to a religion) are being stripped of their rights to have creation taught. There are basically two ways to deal with this:

1. teach both views with a teacher that is not biased (or at least in a non-biased way)

or

2. don't teach any view

One cannot teach mythology is science and be unbiased. Because teaching the mythology of Christian creationism and calling it science would be a lie.

 

[SnowBear]

My personal beliefs in this matter are that the school system isn't and shouldn't be responsible for educating our children on any subject. But, beside that point, many people do not have the means or motivation to handle the schooling on their own. Personally, I feel that the issue of creationism vs. evolution should not be discussed in a classroom at all. Show me one scientific advancement that stemmed from this specific concept (either one).

There is a massive number of examples of the practical application of the theory of evolution.



Gene therapy, cancer therapy, treatment of diabetes, vaccines, genetic testing, heck all of modern medicine is based on the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution provides our basic understanding of genetics and the human genome, without evolution genetics don’t make any sense.

It is all speculation and best guesses. Science should be taught in science class, not guesses and supposition.

I agree…which is why creationism has no place in the science classroom.

 

[Arikay]

random comment post,

You can't PROVE creation wrong, without PROVING that God doesn't exist. I'd love to see someone show me that one.

Very true. But a belief in creation isn't science. Creation is compatible with evolution and modern science. Creationism however is science (most of the time) and can be proven wrong. You don't need to prove God doesn't exist to prove creationism wrong.

How??? I don't remember any news report "CREATIONISM PROVEN FALSE!" Or are you saying that because evolution has so much evidence, that it automatically PROVES Creationism wrong?

That is because for young earth creationism (the most common in the US) it was falsified almost 200 years ago, it's old news. But if you want to know,
for starters,
http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html
www.talkorigins.org

For the holocaust people, you are talking about a massive MINORITY. Whereas Creation is a Majority viewpoint.

Again, science isn't a popularity contest. Unfortunatly many creationist groups are planning on this belief, which is why most arguments for creationism are political. You would think if they had a valid theory they could do what everyone else does and publish their work in peer review journals, have it scrutinized, validated and then put into a school text book.

The ONLY people who dispute evolutionary theory are those with a religious axe to grind. To scientists - the people who really know - it's about as controversial as gravity.

Evolution is considered to have much more strength than gravity which is still a theory in progress (although few people know this, and it provides an example of how creationist arguments against evolution are religiously motivated. Gravity is a much shakier theory than evolution, yet I hear no complaints about it and the general population thinks gravity is a done deal).

 

[Clarity]

There is a massive number of examples of the practical application of the theory of evolution.
Gene therapy, cancer therapy, treatment of diabetes, vaccines, genetic testing, heck all of modern medicine is based on the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution provides our basic understanding of genetics and the human genome, without evolution genetics don’t make any sense.

What a load of nonsense. All of these things have nothing to do with evolution, you can still have modern medicine if the theory of evolution was never proposed and the same is true of the other things as well when they are being studied evolution is never referred to and you do not need to know anything about evolution to study any of these things. Genetics can and does make sense without evolution genetics is the study of the genes god gave us rather than those that supposedly evolved.

It annoys me when people claim that evolution is a fact. This is nonsense unlike other science such as the theory of gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics all these things can be proven by doing experiments and can be seen in everyday real life and measured the same is not true of evolution there are virtually no examples of evolution in real life and there are huge gaps/missing links in the fossil record where the evolutionary ancestors are clearly missing. Many people hold evolution as a belief not becuase they have studied the evidence but because it is the only plausible theory that explains how god cannot exist.

 

[xMinionX]

Many people hold evolution as a belief not becuase they have studied the evidence but because it is the only plausible theory that explains how god cannot exist.

Pretty bold claim. Prove it.

Personally, I trust evolution because it's the only theory out there that holds water, particularly when compard to *pffft* creationism. I don't trust it out of some attempt to disprove god.

 

[Arikay]

I am curious to know what degrees you hold, or classes you have attended to make the claim that evolution is never refered too?

Evolution is a historical science, all of it's "experiments" have already been conducted but the results are hidden and need to be dug up. Evolution can make predictions and then be tested against the evidence that is found.

Where does evolution explain God cannot exist? Please show us.

 

[Jet Black]

It annoys me when people claim that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

This is nonsense unlike other science such as the theory of gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics all these things can be proven by doing experiments and can be seen in everyday real life and measured

actually not a single one of those things can be proven. why do you think they are still called the theory of relativity, and quantum theory. It is impossible to prove a science, but it is possible to falsify one.

the same is not true of evolution there are virtually no examples of evolution in real life

false, evolution is observed all the time in nature.

and there are huge gaps/missing links in the fossil record where the evolutionary ancestors are clearly missing.

unsuprising given the rarity of fossilisation, however there is still significant fossil evidence that demonstrates that evolution has occured. The molecular evidence is also overwhelmingly in favour of evolution.

Many people hold evolution as a belief not becuase they have studied the evidence but because it is the only plausible theory that explains how god cannot exist.

false. Evolution says no such thing about God and whether God exists or not. Greanted most people probably do "believe evolution" and are ignorant of it, but then the same can be said for creationists too. most of them simply "believe" what they hear about evolution and are ignorant about what evolution actually is. you appear to be one of these people from the understanding of evolution and science that you have presented. I do not mean ignorant in an insulting way simply that you do not know what you are on about. if you want to talk about evolution and what it is, I am happy to have a conversation in either the Creation and Evolution forum or via PM.

 

[placebo2]

... Many people hold evolution as a belief not becuase they have studied the evidence but because it is the only plausible theory that explains how god cannot exist.

Are you saying that if evolution is proven true that you will no longer believe that God exists? By "proven" I mean to the same extent that gravity has been proven to your satisfaction.

Are you afraid of science? Does it threaten the foundation of your beliefs? If so you would not be the first.

 

[Clarity]

Are you saying that if evolution is proven true that you will no longer believe that God exists? By "proven" I mean to the same extent that gravity has been proven to your satisfaction.

Are you afraid of science? Does it threaten the foundation of your beliefs? If so you would not be the first.

Are you saying that if creation is proven true that you will believe that God exists? By "proven" I mean to the same extent that gravity has been proven to your satisfaction.

Are you afraid of creation? Does it threaten the foundation of your beliefs? If so you would not be the first.
Is this why you do not want creationism taught in schools.

actually not a single one of those things can be proven. why do you think they are still called the theory of relativity, and quantum theory. It is impossible to prove a science, but it is possible to falsify one.

It is quite easy to verify gravity you get an object and drop it and measure its acceleration and it should be 9.8ms-1 or so neglecting air resistance, also the movement of planets relative to each other verifies gravity. The theory of relativity has been shown to be true by looking at the behaviour of particles in particle accelerators and by muons which travel to earth from space. Quantum mechanics can be proved through observing diffraction of electron beams.
All these things can be empirically calculated and measured. The difference with evolution is that things cannot be measured like this as they occurred in the past so assumptions have to be made about the past which cannot be be verified to the same extent as the other examples I have mentionned. There is also a great degree of flexibility in evolution as if the evidence changes the theory can change to suit the evidence just look at the disagreements over the order in which evolution occurrs and the large number of different evolutionary trees that have been proposed.
see
http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/style.html


As I mentionned earlier the big bang and evolution taken together assume atheism ie you can explain the origin of the universe without reference to any form of higher intelligence/power becuase there is no higher intelligence/power.

There is also no mention of how many organs evolved there is no theory about how the eye/brain/lungs/liver etc could have evolved it is just assumed that they did because evolution says so. In real life no macroevolution has ever been observed eg monkey to man, fish to reptile etc it is assumed that microevolution eg a moth changing colour somehow proves macroevolution has occurred.

Evolutionists also need to explain where life came from as evolution cannot occurr unless there are living organisms to evolve in the first place and the big bang theory is certainly not a fact and has even more flaws than evolution. It contradicts one of einsteins postulates from his theory of relativity which says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, this has been proven yet scientists have come up with an inflationary theory which contradicts this known law of the universe to explain the big bang.

see
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sa031114-1.htm

for more

 

[Arikay]

No, evolutionists do not need to prove the origin of life (which would be abiogenesis, not the big bang btw) because the theory of evolution assumes life exists.
Learning how to drive a car assumes a car exists, you don't need to know how to build a car before you can learn how to drive it.

gallaxies can move away at faster than the speed of light because special relativity is based on motion through space not expansion of space.
Relativity isn't a law.