Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[HouseApe]

Of course this belongs in C&E but:

The existence of gravity, germs and cells no linger fall into the area of "theory" because we have have repeatable, testable evidence of their existence.

The existence of gravity is supported by the "Law of gravity" which can be repeatably shown to be an attraction betwenn tow bodies based solely on their masses. This attraction can be calculated matematically and tested over and over again, always yielding the same results.

The theory of germs and cells was proven with the advent of the microscope, and not only their existence, but their vast complexity was further uncovered by the electron microscope.

This is not the case for the theory of evolution.

Yes it is. Please ask why in the C&E forum if you want to know why it is.

Yes we see similarities within phyla, across phyla and across species. We have hypothesized that these similarities might be the result of gradual or spontaneous changes as a result of changes in environment. However, there are many areas of evidence that refute this hypothesis as well that have already been mentioned in this thread.

All of which are false.

Unlike gravity, germs and cells, we have yet to actually see hard evidence of "evolution" or to be able to repeatably test the hypotheses.

Yes, we have. Again, ask in the C&E for evidence.

We have been able to cause the production some amino acids in a very controlled environment, but not the right kinds, in the right combination and not in any environment that mimics any of the scientifically assumed early Earth atmospheres.

Don't confuse the ToE with abiogenesis.

We have not encountered any "beneficial" mutations, whereby new information is added to the DNA of an organism. Instead, through natural selection, we see LOSS of information over time. We see species going into extenction, but never a new species coming into existence.

Gene duplication and mutations have been observed, new species coming into existence has been observed. Ask in C&E for more info.

Where we once thought that the DNA information was mostly composed of large areas of uncoded "junk" DNA, recent discoveries now show that those areas are filled with introns and telomeres, that act as spaces, tabs and punctuation and are necessary for the proper replication process.

Also, based on recent appraisal of the fossil record, only about 0.1% of the assumed fossil record has been actually found. When this is displayed graphically, it becomes very apparent that the fossil record is of little support for the evolutionary hypothosese.

However you choose to display it, the ToE is perfectly justified by the fossil record.

The fact that change, or evolution, occurs WITHIN species (micro-evolution) has never been disputed and has been verified through application of Mendel's Law which addresses the mathematical limits of variations that can be expected to be found within a species.

Because of the complexity of even the simplest life-forms, the complexity of DNA and accuracy of the DNA replication process, the sudden appearance of major fully evolved life-forms and the evidence loss rather than gain of DNA information over time, I am far more inclined toward the theory of "Intelligent Design", than toward the theory of evolution.

The complexity is much better explained by evolution than by intelligent design. A designer would make things work very well from the start, and would find the simplest mechanism for achieving a result. Also the same mechanism would be used across all species because it works. None of these telltale signs of design are evident in nature.

"Intelligent Design" does not purport to answer the question of "who"

AND WHY NOT!!! If it's science wouldn't someone be interested?

, but does offer a possible "how" for the existence of life on Earth. It supports the classification of life based on common design and DNA information, the fossil record, the scientific evidence that life could not have developed gradually in early Earth atmosphere, but appeared all at once, fully developed, capable of replication and procreation, with balance and purpose.

Yes, but all it says is "an intelligent designer did it". You can tell your kid that in 5 seconds at home, no need to set up a class in school.

I am not in favor of teaching that a particular god, whether he be Hebrew, Greek or Hindu, created life in seven days or seventy million years, but I am in favor of teaching the strengths and weaknesses of theories with an open mind.

ID is not a theory. It makes a hypothesis but that is it. It makes no predictions and has no means of falsifiability. Therefore, it cannot be a scientific theory and is not science.

 

[Randall McNally]

The existence of gravity, germs and cells no linger fall into the area of "theory" because we have have repeatable, testable evidence of their existence.

It isn't the existence of those things that falls under the purview of the various theories. The theory of gravity deals with the mechanism by which gravity operates; germ theory is about the causes of disease; cell theory talks about cells as the basic unit of life.

The existence of gravity is supported by the "Law of gravity" which can be repeatably shown to be an attraction betwenn tow bodies based solely on their masses. This attraction can be calculated matematically and tested over and over again, always yielding the same results.

And yet no one knows with anything approaching certainty how gravity works.

The theory of germs and cells was proven with the advent of the microscope, and not only their existence, but their vast complexity was further uncovered by the electron microscope.

See above.

 

[Arikay]

A couple additional comments,

1) A theory is a theory, it will never grow up and become a law or something else like in the Bill song. A theory is as far as it will ever go no matter how much evidence. So yes, Gravity is a theory (a rather weak theory right now actually) germ theory and cell theory and the theory of relativity are ALL theories. The problem isn't that they are "just theories" but people's understanding of the word.

2) Speciation (changes from species) has been observed, so unless we see the goal posts being moved, evolution has been shown, according to that post.

3) As we can see, support for creationism doesn't ride on anything more than missunderstanding of science and evolution. I would say a large number of creationists do not understand the basics of science (such as theory), the correct definition of evolution (grouping abiogenesis with it), the full scope of evidence for evolution, or a detailed understanding of it. In essence, supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools is supporting anti-knowledge, and urban legends.

 

[SquareC]

Or to put it another way....you've confused the existence of gravity, cells & germs with the Theories of how they work.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Actually, a Law is a much lesser thing in science than a Theory. The Law of Gravity could just refer to the fact that things accelerate at approximately 10 m/s^2 toward the earth at ground level. The thing that is able to explain all macroscopic gravitational phenomena is the Theory of General Relativity. A Law is only a relationship that is usually empirically derived. A Theory is what actually explains what is going on.

 

[Natman]

It isn't the existence of those things (germs and cells) that falls under the purview of the various theories.

My understand in "Germ Theory" comes Louis Pasteur's theory (1850's) in which he believed that there were microscopic organisims on the surface of all things. His theory was tested by various means prior to the invention of microscopes powerful enough to actually see germs.

And "Cell Theory" dating back to Robert Hooke (1650's) theorized that all living things were made up of smaller structures, also proven by the invention of the microscope.

The theory of gravity deals with the mechanism by which gravity operates; germ theory is about the causes of disease; cell theory talks about cells as the basic unit of life.

And yet no one knows with anything approaching certainty how gravity works.

Obviously "Germ Theory" and "Cell Theory" are no longer a mystery. Through microscopic observances and repeatable testing we can know that there are indeed germs on almost everything that, if unchecked can spread desease. We can actually observe that most advanced orgamisms consist of multiple cells, even multiple types of cells, and we have been able to explore even farther than that, into the content and complex operation of these cells.

BTW, gravity is most like chemistry. We can not yet actuall see atoms, electrons, neutrons or protons, but through repeatable testing, we have a good idea of how they react and what their structure most likely looks like. We don't actually have to see the atom in action, but we must be able to test it and expect repeatable results.

I have tried to follow as many of the examples of "observable speciation" listed in the C&E threads, but most of what I have been able to find are examples of modifications within species, some time resulting in sterile organisms or organisms that may not be able to physically reproduce but may still be able to genetically reproduce (Great Dane vs Chihauhau, or the sterile male fruit fly for example).

I do not consider those to be examples of speciation.

Nate

 

[Arikay]

Lucaspa's rather large list,
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626-observed-speciation.html

 

[Randall McNally]

My understand in "Germ Theory" comes Louis Pasteur's theory (1850's) in which he believed that there were microscopic organisims on the surface of all things. His theory was tested by various means prior to the invention of microscopes powerful enough to actually see germs.

No, those were simply observations. The full name of the theory is the "germ theory of disease" because Pasteur believed that some of the microorganisms observable through the scope also caused diseases.

Pasteur would also discover, while studying rabies, that his theory was limited. He hypothesized disease-causing particles that were even smaller than microbes; we call them viruses.

And "Cell Theory" dating back to Robert Hooke (1650's) theorized that all living things were made up of smaller structures, also proven by the invention of the microscope.

No, Hooke's work was again little more than observation. Hooke never even saw living cells; that honor belonged to van Leeuwenhoek some time probably in the 1670s.

Cell theory originated independently in 1838 via Schleiden and Schwann. Virchow formulated the third premise - cells come only from existing cells - in 1855.

Obviously "Germ Theory" and "Cell Theory" are no longer a mystery.

No one is saying that. What is always true about a theory, however, is that it is inductive in nature. It is always possible, however remotely, that a future observation will materially alter, or even falsify, a theory.

Through microscopic observances and repeatable testing we can know that there are indeed germs on almost everything that, if unchecked can spread desease.

But we cannot know these things with deductive certainty.

BTW, gravity is most like chemistry. We can not yet actuall see atoms, electrons, neutrons or protons, but through repeatable testing, we have a good idea of how they react and what their structure most likely looks like. We don't actually have to see the atom in action, but we must be able to test it and expect repeatable results.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to theories of gravity - general relativity, quantum loop gravity, etc.

I have tried to follow as many of the examples of "observable speciation" listed in the C&E threads, but most of what I have been able to find are examples of modifications within species, some time resulting in sterile organisms or organisms that may not be able to physically reproduce but may still be able to genetically reproduce (Great Dane vs Chihauhau, or the sterile male fruit fly for example).

I do not consider those to be examples of speciation.

It seems like you're asking for examples of substantial, easily-observable phenotypic change. But that's not the kind of thing you should expect to see after a handful of generations in a lab. According to the biological species concept, there have been several instances of speciation, some found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Natman]

No, those were simply observations. The full name of the theory is the "germ theory of disease" because Pasteur believed that some of the microorganisms observable through the scope also caused diseases.

Pasteur would also discover, while studying rabies, that his theory was limited. He hypothesized disease-causing particles that were even smaller than microbes; we call them viruses.

Big deal! Most biology textbooks credit Pasteur with proving that "invisible" organisms, "germs" and "bacteria", are present on all things through his experiments with sealed and open vessels. I realize that others speculated about the presence of such organisms as early as two centuries prior. The point is that we now have the tools to detect, test, and eradicate these organisms.

No, Hooke's work was again little more than observation. Hooke never even saw living cells; that honor belonged to van Leeuwenhoek some time probably in the 1670s.

Cell theory originated independently in 1838 via Schleiden and Schwann. Virchow formulated the third premise - cells come only from existing cells - in 1855.

Again, most biology textbooks credit Hooke with the concept of "cells" although the theory "officially" formulated until 1838.

But we cannot know these things with deductive certainty.

There is no langer a need to "deduce" because we now have the abiliy to "observe" first hand.

It seems like you're asking for examples of substantial, easily-observable phenotypic change. But that's not the kind of thing you should expect to see after a handful of generations in a lab. According to the biological species concept, there have been several instances of speciation, some found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Not necessarily. I understand that there are many organisms that appear to be similar at first glance, yet are distinctly different genetically. However, I also understand that there are organisms that vary widely in appearance, that are in all practicallity unlikely to reporduce, but are "genetically" capable of reproducing.

In a recent debate, pointing to evidence of speciation, an evolutionist pointed out a particular set of trout that had been isolated from their original group. Over a period of time, the isolated group, with it's limited genetic combinations began to look substantialy different in size and color from it's original group. This was not the creation of a new species, but the over emphasis of limited traits due to a reduced gene pool. This is no different than selective breeding of dogs, cows, sheep etcetera.

According to your web-site and based on the definition you chose, a "species" is defined as...

"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
​

I only have a problem with this definition if it does not take into account "potentially reproductive" and if "niche" referrs to "physical isolation".

Nate

 

[Randall McNally]

Big deal! Most biology textbooks credit Pasteur with proving that "invisible" organisms, "germs" and "bacteria", are present on all things through his experiments with sealed and open vessels. I realize that others speculated about the presence of such organisms as early as two centuries prior. The point is that we now have the tools to detect, test, and eradicate these organisms.

Somehow, you keep missing the point. Germ theory has nothing to do with the existence of microorganisms. It is an explanation of the disease-causing nature of said microorganisms.

Again, most biology textbooks credit Hooke with the concept of "cells" although the theory "officially" formulated until 1838.

Again, cell theory has nothing to do with the existence of cells.

Can I ask you to do a google search on "cell theory" and "germ theory" so that you may perhaps come to understand what I am having no luck at all explaining?

There is no langer a need to "deduce" because we now have the abiliy to "observe" first hand.

But we cannot observe the mechanics of gravity - space-time warping or gravitons interacting.

Once again, the explanation is different from the thing explained.

Not necessarily. I understand that there are many organisms that appear to be similar at first glance, yet are distinctly different genetically. However, I also understand that there are organisms that vary widely in appearance, that are in all practicallity unlikely to reporduce, but are "genetically" capable of reproducing.

Why do you think biologists would confuse physical barriers to reproduction with genetic isolation?

In a recent debate, pointing to evidence of speciation, an evolutionist pointed out a particular set of trout that had been isolated from their original group. Over a period of time, the isolated group, with it's limited genetic combinations began to look substantialy different in size and color from it's original group. This was not the creation of a new species, but the over emphasis of limited traits due to a reduced gene pool. This is no different than selective breeding of dogs, cows, sheep etcetera.

If speciation occurred, then the two groups would not be able to interbreed.

According to your web-site and based on the definition you chose, a "species" is defined as...

"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
​

I only have a problem with this definition if it does not take into account "potentially reproductive" and if "niche" referrs to "physical isolation".

Again, why the misplaced skepticism? Do you think biologists might try to pull a fast-one and pass off a non-RI species as an RI species based on morphological incompatibilities alone?

A niche is an organisms role in an ecosystem, so I don't quite understand your objection there.

 

[lismore]

If that were all they wanted. I grew up with a conservitive christian background. I used to think it would be great if christians controlled the country. After experiencing this site and some of the primitive wacky ideas christians have it would now scare me to have them in total control.
If fundamentalist christians had total control what would america be like?

1. No science taught in school unless it fit the bible.
2. Christian only mandated prayer in every school.
3. No business on sundays.
4. Women could have no position of authority.
5. Maybe no birth control.
6. No genetic research.
8. Not sure if homosexuals would be locked up or committed.

Any other things literalist christians would mandate? I am sure i am missing many more.

Sounds good apart from 4.

Women should have authority in the dishwashing ministry

 

[lismore]

.

Abortion happened before it was legal but I can see how it could be considered a moral downturn for those that don't believe in it. Gay rights seems to be the biggest, it seems like people think that if we accept gay rights, it trumps all the immoral things we have done in the past.

The amount of coverage that these minority groups get im beginning to feel that normal people are a minority group

 

[h2whoa]

Sounds good apart from 4.

Women should have authority in the dishwashing ministry

Wow, a bigot too. You're quite the charmer.

h2

 

[robot23]

The amount of coverage that these minority groups get im beginning to feel that normal people are a minority group

normal people?
god help us all if this forum is an example of normal people

 

[Blackmarch]

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

It is taught, but perhaps not with the earth... something called the big bang.

 

[placebo2]

I would like to know if Creationism (or Intelligent Design) deserves to be taught in the science classroom as a theory alongside evolution.

Could those in favor of teaching Creationism as science explain how it would hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Could those opposed to teaching Creationism as science explain how it would fail the scrutiny of the scientific method?

 

[Jetgirl]

I would like to know if Creationism (or Intelligent Design) deserves to be taught in the science classroom as a theory alongside evolution.

Could those in favor of teaching Creationism as science explain how it would hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Could those opposed to teaching Creationism as science explain how it would fail the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Creationism fails the scrutiny of the scientific method, simply, and if for no other reason, because it assumes an infailable and necessary conclusion before research has begun or evidence is examined.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I would like to know if Creationism (or Intelligent Design) deserves to be taught in the science classroom as a theory alongside evolution.

No, for two reasons:

1. Depending on which incarnation of creationism or intelligent design, it would involve teaching something that is either (a) falsified as true which amounts to lying, or (b) unfalsifiable which means the concept is not scientific in the first place and thus does not belong in a science classroom.

2. In the United States public school system, it would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution.

Could those opposed to teaching Creationism as science explain how it would fail the scrutiny of the scientific method?

It's more than just evolution vs. creationism, first of all, because creationism, depending on its incarnation, can make other claims relevant to other sciences like geology (e.g., young earth, global flood). Under the scrutiny of the scientific method, these testable and falsifiable concepts have been disproved (some almost two centuries ago). These aspects should be taught as disproved.

However certain aspects of some incarnations of creationism can be seen as unfalsifiable, especially when the goalposts slide around (e.g., the definition of "kind"). If you postulate something that cannot be substantiated or falsified, it's useless and inherently unscientific. Science is a naturalistic methodology, so the use of some kind of supernatural does not fit science in the first place.

Creationism, as it exists today, is inherently antithetical to science. There really is no debate.

 

[Carico]

Creationism definitely should be taught in shcools because not only is it a valid explanation for our existence, but the ONLY logical explanation for our existence. This absurd notion that we came from apes is not only illogical and contradicts basic biology, but it's an embarrassment to the human race. This is nothing but Christian persecution which, of course, Jesus prophesied. Smart man for never having existed or being a fairy tale!

 

[robot23]

Creationism definitely should be taught in shcools because not only is it a valid explanation for our existence, but the ONLY logical explanation for our existence. This absurd notion that we came from apes is not only illogical and contradicts basic biology, but it's an embarrassment to the human race. This is nothing but Christian persecution which, of course, Jesus prophesied. Smart man for never having existed or being a fairy tale!

it does not contradict basic biology at all, like it has been mentioned on this topic many times,
the theory of evolution was persucuted BY the christians when it came out

maybe a basic biology book and a basic history book might help you