Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Mechanical Bliss]

Either one doesn't bother me, kid's need to be tought objectivly, and in a non- baist nature in most cases to develop thier own personal conviction.

There is no evidence that science is not being taught as objectively as possible or in a biased way.

Ditto, right back at you, concerning your belief in evolution.

Evolution is not a religious belief. It is a scientific theory, and the most important one in the biological sciences. To not teach it is to handicap the students. Just like plate tectonics is taught in earth science/geology. Your implied analogy is fatally flawed.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Either one doesn't bother me, kid's need to be tought objectivly, and in a non- baist nature in most cases to develop thier own personal conviction.

The problem here is that science isn't based on conviction. It isn't up to anyone to decide science, except for the scientist. Creationism can't be taught in science class, because it isn't science. It isn't peer reviewed, nor is their any scientific basis for it. You can't teach something nonscience in a science class.

Ditto, right back at you, concerning your belief in evolution.

Evolution is a fact. What are you talking about? The way that evolution works, is the theory. The only theory that the evidence allows is evolution. What else should be taught? The things that evidence doesn't support? That is just odd.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

That's exactly what you imply when you reply to someone who said evolution is taught in science classrooms "because it is science" with the quip that that reasoning is irrelevant. The fact that it is science is the only thing that's relevant here.

Are you concedering your opinion on a factor in this planet's vast knowlege (not!) the only relavent factor, in the planet? Are you that perfect in information, and truth? That you can say that science is the only relivent factor here.

No, that's not a matter of opinion. Creationism has been conclusively disproved, so teaching it as valid would be in fact teaching a lie.

Please give me resorces on proof that creatonism has been conlusivly disprooved.

Accuracy is not a matter of opinion either. It's a matter of statistical probability.

Please give me statisticts.(non-biast)

Yes, that is quite clear. That is a function of the fact that you don't seem to know what science is, how it works, and why science classes should teach science.

Same with you about creatonism, we are in the same boat in that regard, what about compromise for the objective advatige of our kids?

What "broad spectrum?" There is no scientific explanation that competes with the theory of evolution. The only reason people want creationism taught in schools is because they want their religion to be endorsed. That is a violation of the first amendment.

Have you invested in your statement thoroughly?

 

[jesusfreak3786]

There is no evidence that science is not being taught as objectively as possible or in a biased way.

you are closing your mind to the very real possability that the theory of evelution might not one day crumble to pieces in valibility, and future scientific findings may not prove it to be completly wrong. There is scientific evedence that "proves" creation as well as evolution, niether one can conclusivly proved or disproved. Personaly I think evolution scientificly explians some of the vast nature of God's creation, as far as I am concerned They arn't nessaserily contradictory in any way other than the human hosts that carry the information, being in stark disagreament with each other.

Evolution is not a religious belief. It is a scientific theory, and the most important one in the biological sciences. To not teach it is to handicap the students. Just like plate tectonics is taught in earth science/geology. Your implied analogy is fatally flawed.

I never once implied that science should not be taught. Also creationisms scientific evedence could probably be used just as usefully if some scientist were not so racest agianst creatonism science.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Are you concedering your opinion on a factor in this planet's vast knowlege (not!) the only relavent factor, in the planet? Are you that perfect in information, and truth? That you can say that science is the only relivent factor here.

The topic of the thread pertatins to what should be taught in science classrooms.

The ONLY thing that should be taught in science classrooms is science, period.

That's the point I was making. Everything else you wrote to be provocative was something you pulled out of thin air.

Please give me resorces on proof that creatonism has been conlusivly disprooved.

The notion of a young earth and global flood were deemed conclusively disproved by geologists almost two centuries ago. Creationism, which previously rested on the notion of the fixity of the species was disproved by speciation. It ultimately depends on what flavor of creationism you are talking about, as they are presented as either unscientific or disproved.

And no, I'm not going to waste my time presenting you with information you probably won't read, as is the typical scenario with creationists. If you want to learn about the information involved and why creationism has been disproved, then go to the C&E forum where there are numerous threads that have gone over that in detail.

Please give me statisticts.(non-biast)

What a nonsensical statement, and it illustrates that you didn't understand my point. The accuracy of science is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence. That evidence leads to conclusions with accuracy measured by statistical probabilities of being valid. That's why measurements are given with uncertainties and data is given significance levels. It's not mere opinion as to the validity of scientific theories. Science doesn't work via opinions. It works via evidence. That's the point.

Same with you about creatonism, we are in the same boat in that regard, what about compromise for the objective advatige of our kids?

No that's false. However, if you want to polarize the issue by claiming creationism is something separate, then you have already made the argument for me as to why it shouldn't be taught in science classes. Though it is true you don't seem to understand what science is, how science works, and why science classes should teach science.

I have already considered objectivity for students: it's called teaching science in science classes. You don't want objectivity at all--you want one possible interpretation of your religion taught in science classes.

Have you invested in your statement thoroughly?

I said it, I meant it, and I've already investigated this matter thoroughly.

And you really need to work on your spelling.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

you are closing your mind to the very real possability that the theory of evelution might not one day crumble to pieces in valibility, and future scientific findings may not prove it to be completly wrong.

No I am not closing my mind to that possibility. I actually understand how science works.

If you think quantum theory should be taught in chemistry classes, you are closing your mind to the very real possibility that it might one day crumble to pieces, and future scientific findings might prove it completely wrong.

That is true of everything in science. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach anything simply because of the minute possibility that it might be disproved. We should teach valid science, period.

There is scientific evedence that "proves" creation as well as evolution, niether one can conclusivly proved or disproved.

False, false and false.

There is zero supporting evidence for creationism.

Evolution can be conclusively disproved if evidence existed that would disprove it.

Creationism can be conclusively disproved (and already has been). If you are saying it can't be disproved, then it isn't science. Once again, your admission decimates your own position because you don't realize how science works.

I never once implied that science should not be taught.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the context of the discussion and the comments of mine you responded to that caused my further response.

Also creationisms scientific evedence could probably be used just as usefully if some scientist were not so racest agianst creatonism science.

Opposition to creationism is not racist, nor is it a result of bias. Scientists don't use creationism because it is false and useless.

But the point of the thread is what should be taught in science classes. Clearly only science should be taught in science classes. Creationism doesn't fit the bill, end of discussion.

 

[wowbagger]

I realize this thread is somewhat dated, so any Christian- please respond if you get the hankering.

Hi there!



In America, Christianity has become "oppressed" by every other religion, denomination, and civil organization that could possibly muster enough news coverage to create a big squeak. Everyone gets rights now EXCEPT the Christian...
It's reverse discrimination.

I see no evidence that American Christians are discriminated against. Perhaps some of the public monies or special rights allowed to Christians are being revoked and that is seen as discrimination? AFAIK Christians still enjoy special recognition in this country vs. other religions even though the gov't isn't supposed to support one religion over another, or any at all for that matter.

Those historical privileges are diminishing and Christians are upset at their own god not having special recognition. I understand why, but like anything else in this coutry, we have to look at what is fair to all.

Christians can do anything they want, except demand that the government endorse or pay for it. What's the problem with that?

Why mandate that Darwinism must be taught and creationism must be shelved?

Darwinism isn't taught but a well evidenced theory of evolution is and should be taught. Creationism has NO scientific basis. Creationism is in the realm of philosophy and should be kept there until someone can provide any real, peer reviewed scientific evidence. I have never seen such a theory.

Why hand out condoms and refuse to teach abstinance as an alternative?

If you haven't noticed from the statistics, "abstinence only" doesn't work. Many bible belt states that fund such programs have the highest pregnancy rates in the country. Good, solid, factual information about reproduction and avoidance of STD's is what students need. Parents and Churches can always teach all the abstinence they want- but those programs are not in the public health or financial interest of the public domain.

Why remove Christian prayer from the schools yet allow muslims to pray?

Who is doing this? Any child can pray any time they want as long as it does not disrupt others in a public school setting. School time is for learning, not for religious purposes, especially not when it costs tax dollars to do so. Pray at recess or on Sunday or before school. A public school teacher cannot accomodate every religious need in a classroom. Some schools have a meditative moment of silence. That's allright by me.

Why should we remove all religious symbolisms at Christmas and replace them with Santa and the reindeer, after all, it's CHRIST-mas.

"Sunday" comes from a pagan Roman holiday. Why do you deny the pagan sun god on "Sun"day?
Also, I'm sure somewhere in here have been responses of how the Christians took over the pagan winter solstice holidays in the first place and called it Christmas. Historians agree there is little chance Jesus could have been born in December according to the story. The pagans had their trees before any Christian had a nativity in December. So why should Christians have any rights to this day/season over another? Because of the name?

Who is advocating removing the private religious displays? I haven't heard anyone advocate this. The only argument is when public funding endorses a single religion... ie- no public funded nativity on gov't property. Why is that such a hard concept to get across to so many Christians?
"This is the way we've always done it" was never a good argument for anything. Think about it.

Christianity and Christian teachings deserve the same amount of time as everyone and everything else gets.
It's been shelved for a long time, and look what's happened to our society.

The government should not be in the business of religion. They should stay out of it altogether. there are no laws prohibiting religious expression on private property with private funds. Do you think the government should pay for religious expression with public tax dollars?
christian teachings, prayer, and displays, already get a disproportionate time- what are you complaining about exactly?


Finally, why is it that when PUBLIC money (including some of MY money) gets taken away from a religion, they scream discrimination? What would Christians be arguing for if there were Korans in the courtroom and Allah on our money? Really. Think about it from the other perspective. Isn't a secular government to best choice and leave the religion to private hands?

"But this country was founded on Christianity!" isn't a good argument- please don't rehash that one. This country was founded on slavery and antiquated roles for women as well, but we managed to expose the injustice of those things and will hopefully continue to evolve towards fairness to everyone.

wowbagger

 

[jesusfreak3786]

The topic of the thread pertatins to what should be taught in science classrooms.

The ONLY thing that should be taught in science classrooms is science, period.

That's the point I was making. Everything else you wrote to be provocative was something you pulled out of thin air.

Well thats funny, if you go back to the OP, it asks about this subject concerning public schools in a whole, not just science class.

The notion of a young earth and global flood were deemed conclusively disproved by geologists almost two centuries ago. Creationism, which previously rested on the notion of the fixity of the species was disproved by speciation. It ultimately depends on what flavor of creationism you are talking about, as they are presented as either unscientific or disproved.

And no, I'm not going to waste my time presenting you with information you probably won't read, as is the typical scenario with creationists. If you want to learn about the information involved and why creationism has been disproved, then go to the C&E forum where there are numerous threads that have gone over that in detail.

Don't waste your time, I agree, I more than likely wouldn't read it, I don't have much time on my hands, sorry for even asking. As far as the notion that fixisity of species has been disprooved, I beg to differ. There is evedence that species are created with the information from the get go that enables them to change and conform to time, and enviroment. Just because they have noted diffrences, it doesn't mean they are a diffrent species.

What a nonsensical statement, and it illustrates that you didn't understand my point. The accuracy of science is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence. That evidence leads to conclusions with accuracy measured by statistical probabilities of being valid. That's why measurements are given with uncertainties and data is given significance levels. It's not mere opinion as to the validity of scientific theories. Science doesn't work via opinions. It works via evidence. That's the point.

Statistical probabilities, is that like saying it's probably right because based on the knowlage we have now the numbers say it's right? Science as a whole can't be disprooved, but a lot of the so called conclutions can, and will, telling by historical patterns.

No that's false. However, if you want to polarize the issue by claiming creationism is something separate, then you have already made the argument for me as to why it shouldn't be taught in science classes. Though it is true you don't seem to understand what science is, how science works, and why science classes should teach science.

Broad spectrum.....remember it's school in a whole we are talking about.

I said it, I meant it, and I've already investigated this matter thoroughly.

And you really need to work on your spelling.

Ha ha yeah I know, it's not one of my strong points.

 

[hepzibah]

Because they don't understand science well enough to realize that the evidence for evolution is all around us in the flora and fauna of the planet.

They'd rather close their eyes and minds to the concept that the first chapter of the KJV Bible might not necessarily be a literal account of what happened after the lights came on.

This is my opinion, and I do SO hope I'm permitted to have one that differs from others' on this forum. I'm new.

 

[SquareC]

Because they don't understand science well enough to realize that the evidence for evolution is all around us in the flora and fauna of the planet.

They'd rather close their eyes and minds to the concept that the first chapter of the KJV Bible might not necessarily be a literal account of what happened after the lights came on.

This is my opinion, and I do SO hope I'm permitted to have one that differs from others' on this forum. I'm new.

Of course you are permitted to have a different opinion! Where would be the discussion or debate if we all held the same opinions?

 

[hepzibah]

If you look at what has happened to society as far as the increase in violence and more serial killers all the way down to rude drivers, it is all the result of poor parenting. The people who are filkling up prisons and running us off the road are selfish cretins with no vision beyond what they want at any particular mometn. There parents taught them that. I know some very decent, moral people who don't believe in God, so don't blame the lack of school prayer.

There actually is prayer in public schools, it's just that the entire student body isn't forced to participate. "Christ on Campus and other such groups are alive and well and operating in our public schoo;s. Those whop wish to participate meet in a particular classroom before and after school, and don't make everyone wait while they have their meeting.

 

[Abbadon]

There actually is prayer in public schools, it's just that the entire student body isn't forced to participate. "Christ on Campus and other such groups are alive and well and operating in our public schoo;s. Those whop wish to participate meet in a particular classroom before and after school, and don't make everyone wait while they have their meeting.

This is how it should be (religion on your own time). The idea of "intelligent" design or creationism will come up whether or not it's going to be taught. Evolution won't, even though it should.

Some people can't tell the difference between secular and atheistic.

Secular: not supporting one religion over another. Not everyone believes the same thing, so this is the only way to satisfy everyone.

Atheist: no God.

There is a difference, and it gets annoying whan people insist that it's the same thing.

 

[Shane Roach]

In my opinion, Christians want it included because since the concept of consciousness and will are not understood by science pretty much at all, and much has been written to suggest that it may not even be possible to address those issues scientifically in any satisfactory way, the summary exclusion of the possibility of conscious creation which serves as the basis of big bang theory and other anti-spiritual explanations for the beginning of the universe is unfair. In cases where science doesn't have much to say on a subject, explanations should not be excluded simply because they are not based on science alone.

 

[rainbowmoon]

Christianity and government, or any religion and government, is improper, immoral, and insane.
Creationism has no place in a science class of any kind, because it is not science- its religion. If students want to learn about religion in a public school, then they need to take an unbiased, strictly monitored relgion class.

 

[Shane Roach]

Christianity and government, or any religion and government, is improper, immoral, and insane.
Creationism has no place in a science class of any kind, because it is not science- its religion. If students want to learn about religion in a public school, then they need to take an unbiased, strictly monitored relgion class.

Your opinion reveals a distinct prejudice against religion. As I said, the only advantage an absolutely soul-less explanation for the beginning of all things has over ones that include spiritual aspects is it can be done without bothering to address obervable phenomenon such as consciousness and will. Your refusal to acknowledge the importance of these things and then devolve into the teaching of all possible explanations as somehow 'insane' is the very heart of the type of prejudice that freedom of religion is supposed to protect us against.

It hurts no one to be introduced to an idea. If you fear that idea, well, that's a problem, but your own words speak volumes. It's not just that you think it's wrong, but you have all sorts of accusations to spew at people who disagree.

 

[Shane Roach]

To make a long story short, if the beginning of all things is to be discussed at all, it needs to be discussed in a context where all ideas on the subject can be addressed. If it troubles you to have that in a science class, then another class must be found to talk about the beginning of all things. I don't know how deeply you understand or misunderstand big bang theory, but such ideas as 'smearing out' that are used to wipe away glaring problems with the explanation should be compared with ideas about creation and design in order for people to understand WHY it is that people believe things other than the non-spiritual status quo spoon fed to us without anything like an open and honest discosure of the problems with the idea.

 

[rainbowmoon]

Your opinion reveals a distinct prejudice against religion. As I said, the only advantage an absolutely soul-less explanation for the beginning of all things has over ones that include spiritual aspects is it can be done without bothering to address obervable phenomenon such as consciousness and will. Your refusal to acknowledge the importance of these things and then devolve into the teaching of all possible explanations as somehow 'insane' is the very heart of the type of prejudice that freedom of religion is supposed to protect us against.

It hurts no one to be introduced to an idea. If you fear that idea, well, that's a problem, but your own words speak volumes. It's not just that you think it's wrong, but you have all sorts of accusations to spew at people who disagree.

All adjectives aside (insults, accusations, as you say) aside, its principally very simple to me: there is nothing scientific about the theory of Creationism. It has nothing to do with scientific processes or methods. Therefore, because it deals with religion, it belongs in classes about religion.

 

[rainbowmoon]

To make a long story short, if the beginning of all things is to be discussed at all, it needs to be discussed in a context where all ideas on the subject can be addressed. If it troubles you to have that in a science class, then another class must be found to talk about the beginning of all things. I don't know how deeply you understand or misunderstand big bang theory, but such ideas as 'smearing out' that are used to wipe away glaring problems with the explanation should be compared with ideas about creation and design in order for people to understand WHY it is that people believe things other than the non-spiritual status quo spoon fed to us without anything like an open and honest discosure of the problems with the idea.

Hm. I understand what you are saying. And yet in my mind, at least, there is the very basic idea that evolution/big bang theory is a popular scientific belief, whereas creationism is a theological belief. There are some people who regard both as true/valid to some extent, as I do. I've never been in science class where we didn't naturally turn to a discussion of the various theories of creation, including creationism. However, I don't think its merited that creationism is in text books or curriculums.

 

[Arikay]

It appears there is already some missuderstanding about the big bang. Since the big bang is not about first cause, it doesn't rule out "concious creation" since it has no statement about first cause. Think of it like turning on your computer, the big bang is an attempt to explain what happens right after the button is pushed, but makes no statement about who or what caused the computer to start up.

Most indepth descriptions of the big bang I have read point out the questions it has yet to answer, but that is the difference between the big bang and creationism. The big bang theory is still being developed, where as creationism has been falsified.

 

[sherrmann15]

I think science books should have more comics in them. Do you remember those things back in high school days! How dry and boring! Comics would make them way better.

Oh, and I think its interesting that you (there were several posts, don't remember any specific names) said that creationism is not a science and therefore belongs in the religion classroom instead. This idea is one that I have thought on briefly, and would like to share my conclusions:

Science is study of the world around us, and trying to find patterns in order to explain the basic question of "Why?". As far as the big bang is concerned, because it has already happened, it is extremely difficult to experiement and find patterns in something that supposedly happened billions of years before humans even existed. I know there is this kind of evidence and that kind of evidence, but really it is just as much speculation as any evidence that comes from the creation science venue.

Point: since these are all simply ideas with huge difficultly in proving, a fair educational society would present the spectrum of theory. This is clearly fair in all regards, and proponents of evolution/big bang should fear nothing if they are for certain that scientific proof weighs in their favor.