Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Shane Roach]

This is false. Creationism is not a science because it does not use the scientific method. It starts with a conclusion and works backward, choosing evidence which supports the conclusion and ignoring other evidence.

Many of the observations used to undermine big bang and evolution as he origin of species are scientifically gathered.

Scientific theories such as those relating to the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution and the like may well not have as many applications in daily life as other scientific discoveries. This says nothing at all about their validity as science.

No, what I question in their validity is in the inability to truly test any hypothesis about something that far into the past. Apparently the difficulty in this is lost on you, but that doesn't mean others who are concerned about it don't have legitimate questions that remain unanswered.

 

[joebudda]

Many of the observations used to undermine big bang and evolution as he origin of species are scientifically gathered.

Can you please point out some of these observations that were scientifically gathered that undermine evolution or the big bang?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Your claim that "Creationism" never ever uses the scientific method in any of it's evidencial support are pure conjecture. It's used all the time in Creationism. You just haven't bothered to investigate your own claims. Feel free to tool around on icr.org.

It's not pure conjecture to say professional creationists do not use the scientific method. They freely admit that they aren't practicing science with their statements of faith, and then of course speak out of the other side of their mouths in their game of politicking to pretend like their anti-scientific mentality qualifies as science.

This also manifests itself in the way even you have tried to conflate evolution with big bang cosmology or abiogenetic studies, which are fields unrelated to one another.

Interesting that you cite ICR as an example (and erroneously assume other people haven't investigated their material previously) when they are exactly an example of the type of creationist organization I am referring to:

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has a unique statement of faith for its faculty and students, incorporating most of the basic Christian doctrines in a creationist framework, organized in terms of two parallel sets of tenets, related to God's created world and God's inspired Word, respectively.
[...]

The programs and curricula of the Graduate School, as well as the activities of other ICR divisions, while similar in factual content to those of other graduate colleges, are distinctive in one major respect. The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.​

[...]
More explicitly, the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as formulated below.

Source: http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

Emphasis was added by me to highlight the reasons why ICR and creationism are not about science and reject the scientific method outright.

Those who work for ICR are required to be "committed" to the tenets of creationism, which include falsified notions like a global flood and young earth, for examples, as they are listed on that site.

The scientific method does not work if you simply presume to have the correct conclusion and that any contradictory evidence is automatically ignored or twisted. That's exactly what they admit to doing: the claim young earth creationism is "truth" so they don't allow for the potential of falsification of that conclusion in thier own framework. It simply can't be science if their conclusion is merely presumed to be true, cannot be rejected by anyone who works for them, and if they choose to ignore any evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

That's not how the scientific method works.

 

[Shane Roach]

Can you please point out some of these observations that were scientifically gathered that undermine evolution or the big bang?

Can you please point out how anyone will ever be able to falsify any creation theory whatsoever, religious or atheistic?

Just in the interests of moving the discussion along, I am not aware of any that could not be found by an internet search, so if you are asserting that no evidence exists that is scientifically gathered that there are problems with evolution as the origin of species or of the big bang then maybe I will break down and post one.

 

[HouseApe]

I am jumping in on this thread late, so if this has been covered I apologize.

Can you please point out how anyone will ever be able to falsify any creation theory whatsoever, religious or athestic?

You are right, Shane, however that doesn't make all theories co-equal. The problem is with the whole idea of ever throwing the supernatural into science. Once you decide you can do that in one place, why not do it everywhere? You can always claim "God did it", close your eyes and walk away. Science should never do that. Why not just claim that gravity is God pulling stuff down to earth? No more need to study that subject!

It is fine to teach creationism in a religion class. But never a science class. If a parent wants a child to believe in creationism that is fine. Explain to them that evolution is the best science can come up with because science must exclude God, or science is pointless.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The theory of evolution states that populations of species evolve do to natural selection (predatorily or environmentally). That is it.

The Big bang is more based on the theory of relativity, a mathematical equation, using the speed that the universe is separating and calculating it back to its origins. This theory falls apart once we get down to everything we know condensed down to an extremely heavy focal point of mass. This is because we haven’t found a way to combine quantum mechanics and relativity, yet if M theory is proved true then this would be able to merge the two and explain the big bang more, or discredit it altogether.

Either of these is put out there for anyone to prove false. They are still dominating theories because no one has proved them wrong yet.

Perhaps you should look up burden shift fallacy. Those theories (see definition of theory please) haven't been 'proven true' in the first place and that is exactly my point and is exactly why Intelligent Design, etc. is just as credible.
I CHOOSE to adhere to Creationist because of the evidence, you are free to CHOOSE to adhere to those secular BELIEFS as well. The rub comes when it is asserted that one is more 'whatever' than the other.
Contrary - I win in this argument because I don't have some overwhelming compulsion to claim that one or the other is 'whatever I can't prove' or based on scientific and proven points, which usually the leaps of faith can be shown throughout... ironically, even the secular.

 

[aca_rev55]

Religion just should not be taught in schools unless the schools are specifically for that religion. Religion is separated from state, is that so difficult to consider? Evolution is not religion, it pertains to biology mostly in schools... no where will a teacher say "Okay the evolutionary theory we're going to be learning about implies that there is no god at all, and intelligent design was not possible." They're teaching a theory on HOW something could have happened, it isn't religious at all. The only people who have problems with it are the ones who are religiously strict about the creation theory and get too easily p/o'd when their 7th grader has bio homework with the phylogenetic tree on it. Just send them to a freakin' private school.

Religion separated from state. Creation - religious, School - state.

 

[Shane Roach]

You can always claim "God did it", close your eyes and walk away. Science should never do that. Why not just claim that gravity is God pulling stuff down to earth? No more need to study that subject!

It's my belief that this is exactly what has happened in reverse, though. We repeatedly hear that evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and yet a look at the writins of Darwin himself exhibit his beliefs on the matter. Ones beliefs concerning the state of man as a conscious, free will agent, and the source of this agency, form the underpinnings from which ideas of the liklihood of things like evolution or big bang vs creation or design.

Nor do I know of anyone who argues to stop study on these subjects. To be honest I get sick of such hyperbole over this subject.

I do find more in your post to actually discuss than usual, and I appreciate that.

 

[Shane Roach]

Religion just should not be taught in schools unless the schools are specifically for that religion. Religion is separated from state, is that so difficult to consider? Evolution is not religion, it pertains to biology mostly in schools... no where will a teacher say "Okay the evolutionary theory we're going to be learning about implies that there is no god at all, and intelligent design was not possible." They're teaching a theory on HOW something could have happened, it isn't religious at all. The only people who have problems with it are the ones who are religiously strict about the creation theory and get too easily p/o'd when their 7th grader has bio homework with the phylogenetic tree on it. Just send them to a freakin' private school.

Religion separated from state. Creation - religious, School - state.

They are teaching a theory that assumes there is no spiritual aspect to life in the face of the evidence we all live with in our own experience as aware, free-will agents. As we know our own behaviors do not seem to be pre-determined, likewise it is not safe to just assume that all of the universe has existed in mechanistic, predetermined behavior far into a past that can never be inspected.

I would also add that the idea that no public school should ever be allowed to mention a word about religion is not in keeping with the intent of the constitution and the constant lobbying to make that the meaning is clear indication of violation of the free exercise clause as far as I am concerned.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Religion just should not be taught in schools unless the schools are specifically for that religion. Religion is separated from state, is that so difficult to consider? Evolution is not religion, it pertains to biology mostly in schools... no where will a teacher say "Okay the evolutionary theory we're going to be learning about implies that there is no god at all, and intelligent design was not possible." They're teaching a theory on HOW something could have happened, it isn't religious at all. The only people who have problems with it are the ones who are religiously strict about the creation theory and get too easily p/o'd when their 7th grader has bio homework with the phylogenetic tree on it. Just send them to a freakin' private school.

Religion separated from state. Creation - religious, School - state.

Perhaps you can show me where "Separation of Church and State" is stated in our constitution. Your adherence that it somehow means freedom FROM religion is well contested.

"is that so difficult to consider?"
Also - no one was discussing "establishing a religion", the topic was discussing different beliefs as to origins and such; to which, there is just as much legitimacy to what "I believe".

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It is fine to teach creationism in a religion class. But never a science class. If a parent wants a child to believe in creationism that is fine. Explain to them that evolution is the best science can come up with because science must exclude God, or science is pointless.

I was not aware that science meant anti-God... I suppose there should have been a memo given on the eighth day...



Even Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus etc. owe their gain of knowledge and had their beliefs even when their ideas went against what was commonly held...
Poor Sir Isaac Newton and the rest... why were the educated and the learned so closely tied to religion??? How silly they look now.

 

[HouseApe]

It's my belief that this is exactly what has happened in reverse, though. We repeatedly hear that evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and yet a look at the writins of Darwin himself exhibit his beliefs on the matter. Ones beliefs concerning the state of man as a conscious, free will agent, and the source of this agency, form the underpinnings from which ideas of the liklihood of things like evolution or big bang vs creation or design.

And that is my point. That science must make the assumption that there are no supernatural agents in the world. Otherwise, science cannot work, because the supernatural agents can step in at any point and change the ground rules.

Nor do I know of anyone who argues to stop study on these subjects. To be honest I get sick of such hyperbole over this subject.

This is the moderate/extremist issue again. I can assure you that there are millions of Americans who would care less if evolution and the subjects that flow from it - genetics, natural history, etc... are never taught again.

I do find more in your post to actually discuss than usual, and I appreciate that.

than usual?

 

[HouseApe]

I was not aware that science meant anti-God... I suppose there should have been a memo given on the eighth day...



Even Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus etc. owe their gain of knowledge and had their beliefs even when their ideas went against what was commonly held...
Poor Sir Isaac Newton and the rest... why were the educated and the learned so closely tied to religion??? How silly they look now.

Science is not anti-God. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, and must assume the lack of the supernatural. Science makes no claims about the supernatural, because it is not within its domain. If God were found in the natural world, then, I can assure you, science would be all over Him. A scientist can be a Christian creationist and do concrete work on evolutionary theory.

God is the realm of religion, a completely different area of study.

 

[Shane Roach]

than usual?

Before I respond to your post, I have to appologize. I meant, your posts in general have more to talk about that the usual posts I am accustomed to getting here.

I was trying to be complimentary about the thoughtful tone of your posts! Instead I appear to have stuffed my foot down my throat. Sorry!!!

 

[Shane Roach]

And that is my point. That science must make the assumption that there are no supernatural agents in the world. Otherwise, science cannot work, because the supernatural agents can step in at any point and change the ground rules.

This is what science absolutely must NOT do. Science must admit its inability to address such issue, but NOT make the assumption that there are no supernatural agents in the world. Especially given the observable facts concerning the nature of living things and their apparent ability to operate outside mechanistic constraints, this assumption simply must not be allowed to prevail

This is the moderate/extremist issue again. I can assure you that there are millions of Americans who would care less if evolution and the subjects that flow from it - genetics, natural history, etc... are never taught again.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Almost everyone I can think of wants our education system to offer the fullest amount of information possible.

 

[joebudda]

Can you please point out how anyone will ever be able to falsify any creation theory whatsoever, religious or atheistic?

Just in the interests of moving the discussion along, I am not aware of any that could not be found by an internet search, so if you are asserting that no evidence exists that is scientifically gathered that there are problems with evolution as the origin of species or of the big bang then maybe I will break down and post one.

When you use the term creation I am assuming some sort of religious claim or the big bang theory. Is this correct?

The big bang is based on the theory of relativity; this is the theory of gravity and mass. This can be tested, observed, and replicated. We know that the universe is expanding through observation. We can throw these measurements into the relativity equations and track back the progress of this constant expanding to a focal point. We do not have the capabilities to go further then this yet it is repeatable using already tested equations.

 

[Shane Roach]

Science is not anti-God. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, and must assume the lack of the supernatural. Science makes no claims about the supernatural, because it is not within its domain. If God were found in the natural world, then, I can assure you, science would be all over Him. A scientist can be a Christian creationist and do concrete work on evolutionary theory.

God is the realm of religion, a completely different area of study.

See, it is this dismissal of anything "supernatural" to the realm of religion I object to. We all experience the basis of claims of the "supernatural" in our own consciousness and will. If such things have a natural explanation, fine. Of they don't, fine. But whether they are natural or supernatural, they are there and deserve to be addressed.

 

[joebudda]

Perhaps you should look up burden shift fallacy. Those theories (see definition of theory please) haven't been 'proven true' in the first place and that is exactly my point and is exactly why Intelligent Design, etc. is just as credible.
I CHOOSE to adhere to Creationist because of the evidence, you are free to CHOOSE to adhere to those secular BELIEFS as well. The rub comes when it is asserted that one is more 'whatever' than the other.
Contrary - I win in this argument because I don't have some overwhelming compulsion to claim that one or the other is 'whatever I can't prove' or based on scientific and proven points, which usually the leaps of faith can be shown throughout... ironically, even the secular.

You are playing the terminology game that creationist play.

 

[Shane Roach]

When you use the term creation I am assuming some sort of religious claim or the big bang theory. Is this correct?

The big bang is based on the theory of relativity; this is the theory of gravity and mass. This can be tested, observed, and replicated. We know that the universe is expanding through observation. We can throw these measurements into the relativity equations and track back the progress of this constant expanding to a focal point. We do not have the capabilities to go further then this yet it is repeatable using already tested equations.

First off, it appears not only that the universe is expanding, but that its expansion is accelerating. It is hypothesized that this is due to dark energy which, to the best of my knowledge, is not something anyone has observed. I find this evidence that the Big Bang simply cannot be falsified. You can alter mathematical models to encompass almost any eventuality by adding to them.

Secondly, it appears to me that the assumption that nothing could have happened between now and the distant past to interrupt the utility of relativity in reverse engineering origins is a false one.

And finally, the very laws of relativity used by this hypothesis by all accounts break down at the eventual conclusion, leaving one to wonder that if the theory cannot account for the entire breadth of the hypothesis it is supposed to model, what possible falsification will ever convince anyone that it is probably not well founded.

And this doesn't even get to the point of addressing sentience. This is just looking at the massive problems even if one doesn't even think about any possible interuptions by a sentient being at all.

 

[HouseApe]

See, it is this dismissal of anything "supernatural" to the realm of religion I object to. We all experience the basis of claims of the "supernatural" in our own consciousness and will. If such things have a natural explanation, fine. Of they don't, fine. But whether they are natural or supernatural, they are there and deserve to be addressed.

But science cannot, by its very nature, address the supernatural. You are asking Einstein to explain the Mona Lisa. Consider the human mind. It may very well be that our God created souls are sitting there, thinking and telling our bodies what to do. But science cannot find a soul. All it can do is play with the physical brain. It must come up with a natural explanation, because that is all that it can measure & test. The point is, like it or not, science can only give you a natural explanation, even if it is wrong.

Religious parents should recognize this and explain this to their children if they do not want their beliefs threatened. Which I don't think should be a big deal.