Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[joebudda]

I said public forum, not school. Having said that, an example of it in school is this very debate. The idea that the world is going to come to an end if all angles of a subject are discussed in a science class is an example of atheistic values being given more weight than simple common sense.

There is a case about ten commandments displays before the supreme court that is another example of the eagerness of some to do away with references to God in the public forum.

It doesn't matter what class you discuss facts in, as long as facts are discussed.

What are these “atheistic values” you are insinuating here? And in comparison to what “common sense” are you referring to?

 

[Arikay]

Katydid: If all theories that are disproven should not be taught in science, then thats fine with me. It would mean that creationism is not taught in science.


Shane:
Can you explain what you mean by all theories? Does this mean every possible creation theory, from hindu to raelien to native american to the guy on the street corner? When you say teach, how long should the teacher or book spend on each creation "theory"?

Do you think that the same should be done for other sciences? Should all possible explanations for sickness be taught as well?

 

[Katydid]

Then you are saying we shouldn’t teach any science in schools.

If you don’t mind please tell me your definitions for “theory” and “scientific theory”. Is there is difference in these two terms?

No , just not theories of creation, big bang etc. You know, theories about the beginning of the human race.

To me, it doesn't matter if there is a theory or "scientific theory". The point is, you have some who are offended if creationism is even mentioned, and some who are offended if it is not. So in my opinion, since, there is so much diversity in our society, NO theory of how we began should be mentioned. Let the families teach that on their own.

 

[joebudda]

No , just not theories of creation, big bang etc. You know, theories about the beginning of the human race.

To me, it doesn't matter if there is a theory or "scientific theory". The point is, you have some who are offended if creationism is even mentioned, and some who are offended if it is not. So in my opinion, since, there is so much diversity in our society, NO theory of how we began should be mentioned. Let the families teach that on their own.

Shouldn’t the "science" that is taught in school all be supported by evidence?

 

[Shane Roach]

What are these “atheistic values” you are insinuating here? And in comparison to what “common sense” are you referring to?

What do you mean insinuating? Do you ever answer questions or do you just ask them all the time?

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane:
Can you explain what you mean by all theories? Does this mean every possible creation theory, from hindu to raelien to native american to the guy on the street corner? When you say teach, how long should the teacher or book spend on each creation "theory"?

Do you think that the same should be done for other sciences? Should all possible explanations for sickness be taught as well?

I didn't say all theories. What theories are you opposed to having mentioned even in a social studies class?

 

[Shane Roach]

Shouldn’t the "science" that is taught in school all be supported by evidence?

What is the evidence that big bang or origin of species theories are infallible? What sort of evidence do you accept?

 

[Katydid]

Shouldn’t the "science" that is taught in school all be supported by evidence?

If there was evidence supporting any of these theories, they would be facts not theories. A theory is something that CANNOT be proven or HASN'T been proven. Therefore, according to your own words, creation should not be discussed.

Now as far as evidence that goes to support a theory, all the theories have that. You can find evidence to support the big bang theory, evolution, and YES even creation, or as it is called in some circles, intelligent design. All of these have support found by scientists.

 

[joebudda]

What do you mean insinuating? Do you ever answer questions or do you just ask them all the time?

You are using terms, and I do not understand your definition of these terms. If I am to understand what you mean when using these terms wouldn’t you think it would be prudent for the conversation if I understood your meaning when using various terms?

 

[joebudda]

If there was evidence supporting any of these theories, they would be facts not theories. A theory is something that CANNOT be proven or HASN'T been proven. Therefore, according to your own words, creation should not be discussed.

Now as far as evidence that goes to support a theory, all the theories have that. You can find evidence to support the big bang theory, evolution, and YES even creation, or as it is called in some circles, intelligent design. All of these have support found by scientists.

Then you do not understand what a “scientific theory” is? If this is the case it isn’t your fault you are ignorant of the definition, it is just you never learned the definition. Then you are arguing from ignorance.


Do you accept the “theory of relativity”, you know that explanation of how the planets stay in orbit around the sun and why when you drop something it falls to the ground?

You say there is evidence for creation can you point it out please.

 

[Arikay]

Bah, I inserted it in there while reading. I'm not opposed to theories social studies, I was still refereing to science classes.

I didn't say all theories. What theories are you opposed to having mentioned even in a social studies class?

 

[Arikay]

As Joe pointed out, you missunderstand science.

A scientific theory is the highest a scientific theory can go. Many famous scientific theories exist that many people treat as fact, such as germ theory or cell theory. Facts support a theory. Take germ theory for example, the fact is that we see tiny organisms that reproduce and appear to effect our body, this fact supports germ theory, but the theory stays a theory.

You are right, all theories have evidence, although some have more than others (Possitive evidence for ID is lacking). What is important is whether there is evidence to disprove the theory, and if the theory can be disproven to begin with.

If there was evidence supporting any of these theories, they would be facts not theories. A theory is something that CANNOT be proven or HASN'T been proven. Therefore, according to your own words, creation should not be discussed.

Now as far as evidence that goes to support a theory, all the theories have that. You can find evidence to support the big bang theory, evolution, and YES even creation, or as it is called in some circles, intelligent design. All of these have support found by scientists.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Then you do not understand what a “scientific theory” is? If this is the case it isn’t your fault you are ignorant of the definition, it is just you never learned the definition. Then you are arguing from ignorance.


Do you accept the “theory of relativity”, you know that explanation of how the planets stay in orbit around the sun and why when you drop something it falls to the ground?

You say there is evidence for creation can you point it out please.

Evidence? Got a mirror handy?

But back to your restrictions via terminology and assertions that everything 'science' is the sterile lab and not first a seed of revelation or conceptualization...
If you insist on tooting the same horn over and over, you will eventually be drowned out by the overwhelming realism of 'beyond the basics'...

Excerpt:
"The use of this term in English has wroght a certain amount of havoc. mainly through misunderstanding. It was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact scientific theory."
http://www.isss.org/laszlofw.htm

Case closed.

 

[Katydid]

You say there is evidence for creation can you point it out please.

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html

This one you have to look around a bit, but there is some
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html

Don't know what I think about this one but here you go
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fast.htm

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

http://www.halos.com/

http://www.equip.org/free/CP0103.htm

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/evidence.htm

http://www.grisda.org/origins/25002.htm

and that was just a few that google gave me.

Since I am so ignorant as you would believe then I figured I would allow smarter people than me to explain it. Yes, I know ignorance is not a measurement of IQ, but what people seem to think is that I don't understand that we believe and know that theories are correct with proof. My only argument, is that there is no contradicting theory to gravity, or relativity, while there are many theories on creation, therefore it is wrong to limit teaching to only one of those theories.

 

[joebudda]

Evidence? Got a mirror handy?

But back to your restrictions via terminology and assertions that everything 'science' is the sterile lab and not first a seed of revelation or conceptualization...
If you insist on tooting the same horn over and over, you will eventually be drowned out by the overwhelming realism of 'beyond the basics'...

Excerpt:
"The use of this term in English has wroght a certain amount of havoc. mainly through misunderstanding. It was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact scientific theory."
http://www.isss.org/laszlofw.htm

Case closed.

How is a mirror evidence of creation? Or are you talking me? If I am evidence of creationism what other evidence to you have to support this claim?

The rest of your post I am not understanding you point you are attempting to make.

Unless you are talking of complexity (system theory) proves creationism? What are we using to assume something is complex or not? What are we using as a standard to judge what is or is not complex?

 

[fiznatch]

What's the worst thing that could happen by teaching creationism along side evolution? Or even simply mentioning that evolution is, in fact, a theory?

 

[Arikay]

Katy: tell me, have you researched any of these claims that you listed?
I would recomend doing so. Things such as foot prints and hammers have been discovered to be frauds or missrepresented by Mr. Baugh. Many of the things you posted have been falsified.
If you would like to talk about it more, I would be happy to give you some information in the creation evolution forum.

 

[joebudda]

My only argument, is that there is no contradicting theory to gravity, or relativity, while there are many theories on creation, therefore it is wrong to limit teaching to only one of those theories.

Well we take these equations in the theory of relativity and plug in the measurements at which we can observe the universe is expanding and back track it to a focal point. Maybe you might be more comfortable calling it creation, but in the scientific community it is referred as the big bang.

 

[Katydid]

Katy: tell me, have you researched any of these claims that you listed?

I know many will consider me a bad christian, but as far as I am concerned, well, I guess you could say that I am not concerned by creation. We are here, how we got here, whether by big bang, 7 day creation, or evolution, God orchestrated it. But, I do sympathise with those who believe one specific thing and don't want their children to not learn it alongside other theories.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

All which I have been taught in public schools, I suppose that you had a point somewhere in there...

NONE of which are taught in public schools as science.