Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[kwanseemun]

that's like asking why some scientists want evolution taught in schools.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If that is your standard, then big bang is not a science either. Science can be proven, an experiment can be set up to duplicate it.

Sorry, but wrong. There is no such criteria.

Guess what - big bang can not be proven, it can not be duplicated either.

The big bang, like evolutionary theory, is as 'proven' as anything in science gets.

There is no proof for big bang, so according to your standards it HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE CLASS. Come on, let's be fair here. Either teach them both, or don't teach either!

Nice strawman. It's YOUR standards that say "no proof, then not science." Not mine. Science isn't in the business of proof. Evolution gets taught because it is science; creationism doesn't get taught because it's not science.

It takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing - than to believe that something came from something. If you look at a watch do you think "oh, there must have been an explosion and all the particles slammed into each other"? No. You know there is a watchmaker. A human being is 1 billion times more complex than a watch. To believe that atoms collided (where did the atoms come from?) and created life is the same as believing a whirlwind hit a junk yard and created a 747.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense, and shows a total ignorance of science.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

There are several different areas where classic evolution struggles.

No, there aren't.

The Big Bang. We no longer have an infite period of time in a continuosly expanding and contracting universe, which was the previouslyheld theory. There have been only about 400 million years since the earth cooled enough to support life. Most of the complex animal life we now have arose in the Cambrian period. Fossil records giving evidence for transitory forms is all but non existant. The sudden appearance of mutliple and complex forms of life has not been explained as yet as demonstrably supporting evolution.

I don't know where you got the idea that there have only been about 400 million years since the earth cooled enough to support life - it's false.

The development of science post Darwin into cellular biology. The complexity found in living cells stretches credulity for mere chance as the cuase of sucg complexity. This is beher's main arguement.

No, it doesn't "stretch credulity", except for ID proponents'. It's Behe's ONLY argument, and it's completely without scientific merit.

Fossil Evidence. We have millions of fossils and fossil species. Their evidence for transitional forms is not impressive.

Well, the world's scientists disagree with you. Wonder who knows more about the subject?

There is no widely held theory of the origin of life held amongst scientists. This is a problem area.

No, it's not, since the origin of life is completely unrelated to evolutionary theory.

More details are contained in the many publications now available. If a good education requires people to judge intelligently between options, then as full a set of information as possible should be given. A popular name for one sided presentations is propaganda.

Yes, more details on these and other PRATTs are available in many creationist publications. Or, on the other hand, you could actually read some science.

 

[Arikay]

John.

The Big Bang:
Is Not, repeat, Not part of the theory of evolution. If that is what the case for a creator said, then he didn't bother to do even 30 minutes of research. The big bang is still a valid theory, and was proposed as competition for a theory that says the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. So the fact that time is finite supports the big bang.


Cambrian explosion:
I don't know where you got the 400 million year number, but it's wrong. The earth has supported life for over 3 billion years.

The cambrian explosion occured around 540 million years ago and was only "sudden" in a geological sense. It happened over a period of over 5 Million years. There are transitional fossils that go through the cambrian, and only 11 of 32 metazoan phyla appeared during the explosion. Some appeared before and many after.

The cambrian explosion is often misrepresented by creationist and ID sources.


Complexity:
The problem with complexity as an argument is long, but the short of it is that it's an argument from ignorance. Behe's arguments of Irreducible complexity have been falsified. Evolution can create IC systems.


Fossil evidence:
Have you actually looked at the evidence for transitional forms?
How is it not impressive?


Abiogenesis:
This also has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but you are right, there are still competing theories of abiogenesis. That doesn't mean abiogenesis is false or that God did it.


Education:
A good education requires that people are taught the correct information. As the amount of people who believe in creationism and ID shows, that is not happening. Of course, filling the class rooms with more incorrect information wont fix that.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

Sorry, but wrong. There is no such criteria..

If there is no criteria for proof - then you must also teach Creation!

The big bang, like evolutionary theory, is as 'proven' as anything in science gets...

Then you are saying science is a farce. If big bang is as 'proven' as anything in science gets - then there is nothing proven. Has anyone ever duplicated "big bang"? Science is verifiable. Big Bang is not.

Nice strawman. It's YOUR standards that say "no proof, then not science." Not mine. Science isn't in the business of proof. Evolution gets taught because it is science; creationism doesn't get taught because it's not science.

Hmmm. Let's ask some scientists if they are in the business of proof. Let's ask some chemists, some engineers, etc. It is all based on experimenting and PROVING that your hypothesis is right. Show me how evolution is science. I totally disagree with you.
P.S. The only time people use "strawman" against someone is when they are running scared. They have nothing to argue! As you, obviously. If it is a strawman, then knock it down. It is not my standards that say proof, it is science itself. I don't know where you have been studying, but if science doesn't require proof - then we can say the moon is made of cheese and call it science!

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense, and shows a total ignorance of science.

Sorry, but it is true, you are the one believing in fantasies and you are the one totally ignorant of science, by saying it does not require proof.

 

[Arikay]

After that I need a 148 proof drink.

To repeat what I have said before, I think the many misconceptions of science and how it works, shows just how poor our schools are doing teaching science.
Unfortunatly I think this proof thing is the same problem with theory, many people take the everyday meaning of prove and theory and apply them to their understanding of science. A better understanding of science would show that proof has a slightly different meaning than it's everyday definition.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

If there is no criteria for proof - then you must also teach Creation!

Sorry, but wrong. 'Proof' is not a criteria for science - but there ARE criteria. Included among them are falsifiability, ability to predict, and so forth. Creationism fails all of these criteria. It's not science.

Then you are saying science is a farce. If big bang is as 'proven' as anything in science gets - then there is nothing proven. Has anyone ever duplicated "big bang"? Science is verifiable. Big Bang is not.

Nope, science isn't a farce. It's the single best method we have for finding out about the universe around us. But you fail to understand...science doesn't 'prove' anything. It never can. All it ever establishes is probabilities. Science has established that gravity works...but it can never prove that it always works, or always will. Gravity could stop working tomorrow - science can only discover probabilities. Whenever you hear of someone saying that science has 'proved' something, it merely means that science has established its probability to such an extent that it would be perverse to deny it. Both the big bang and evolutionary theory fall into this class. Both are as 'proven' as relativity, or germ theory, or gravity.

Hmmm. Let's ask some scientists if they are in the business of proof. Let's ask some chemists, some engineers, etc. It is all based on experimenting and PROVING that your hypothesis is right.

Ask them, by all means. They'll all agree with me. Science is based on FALSIFYING hypothesis, not on proving them right.

Show me how evolution is science.

Evolution is a falsifiable theory based on evidence and hypotheses which have not been disproven. That makes it science.

I totally disagree with you.

You can disagree with me all you like. And on subjective matters, such as which food tastes the best for example, your disagreement (ie., your different opinion) would be of merit and worth. In this instance, however, you are simply wrong, and your disagreement is like someone disagreeing that 2+2=4.

P.S. The only time people use "strawman" against someone is when they are running scared. They have nothing to argue!

No, that's false. Using strawmen is quite common in debate. It can happen by mistake (as a person misunderstands another person's position) or intentionally, when a person decides that something is easier to attack than the opponent's actual position.

As you, obviously.

Right. I wasn't the one using a strawman.

If it is a strawman, then knock it down.

I have. Science is not in the business of proof. That's very basic science.

It is not my standards that say proof, it is science itself.

Sorry, that's just false.

I don't know where you have been studying, but if science doesn't require proof - then we can say the moon is made of cheese and call it science!

No, we cannot. That would be a falsified hypothesis, and not science.

Sorry, but it is true, you are the one believing in fantasies and you are the one totally ignorant of science, by saying it does not require proof.

It is true, I believe in no fantasies, and science can never produce proof. Sorry that you don't know that...you might do some research into the philosohpy of science. You might well learn something.

 

[dElIrIoUsLy:mIcH]

Science and Christianity rarely agree.

I just dont see how the Earth could have been created by anything other than God Himself. In my opinion, it is not logical to think that something as intracate as the Earth, that supports life, can just evolve somehow. We didnt just pop out of nowhere. If that is the case, explain human concious, and emotions. . .these are not things that just "evolve" with humans as we adapt to our enviroment. They are God given. Just something to think about. . . .I'm sure someone will dispute this soon. . .predictability. . . .another human quality that could not have just "evolved".

 

[Arikay]

I disagree.

Science and christianity agree as long the christian is willing to admit their interpretation of the bible (or in some cases, missunderstanding of science) is at fault. The majority of christians world wide accept evolution.

It is very important to understand that it is not, christianity vs evolution. Evolution does not say God didn't create, it explains how God created.
An analogy, crystalization doesn't say that God doesn't create snowflakes and diamonds, it says How God creates snowflakes and diamonds.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

There is no place for religion in a public school. Pure and simple.

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.


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

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

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

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


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.


~serapha~

Oh no no no, haha! Christians? Opressed? That's the funniest thing I've heard all week! Christians do more opressing than anyone in this free country! They push, they shove, they moan, they groan. And for what? So they can get the same attention they got so many years ago. When Christianity ruled the earth. Well, I'm sorry, but science is inheriting the earth as it should. Christians get their morals taught everywhere, whether they put it there or not. Stop complaining.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Science and Christianity rarely agree.

On the contrary. Science and christianity never disagree, because christianity concerns matters that are outside the province of science. The two areas both discuss matters of which the other is not qualified to comment.

However, when religion - christian or otherwise - attempts to intrude into scientific matters, it has ALWAYS been demonstrated to be wrong. That, however, is not the fault of christianity, but of certain christians.

I just dont see how the Earth could have been created by anything other than God Himself. In my opinion, it is not logical to think that something as intracate as the Earth, that supports life, can just evolve somehow.

It is at least as logical as assuming that something as intricate as god has always existed.

We didnt just pop out of nowhere.

No, we didn't.

If that is the case, explain human concious, and emotions

You should do some research and discover how well science is moving toward explaining just how these things came to be.

these are not things that just "evolve" with humans as we adapt to our enviroment.

Yes, they are.

They are God given.

That's your religious belief. Good for you. Just don't confuse it with science.

 

[SnowBear]

If that is your standard, then big bang is not a science either. Science can be proven, an experiment can be set up to duplicate it. Guess what - big bang can not be proven, it can not be duplicated either. There is no proof for big bang, so according to your standards it HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE CLASS. Come on, let's be fair here. Either teach them both, or don't teach either!

Scientific theories can also be confirmed by observation. The theory of the Big Bang has objective observable evidence to support it. Arno Penzias was awarded a Nobel Prize for detailing such an observation.



Saying that there is no evidence to support the Big Bang is simply untrue. Aside from the discoveries of Arno Penzias there is also evidence that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is polarized. The CMB has been called the afterglow of the Big Bang. It is radiation that comes from all directions in space and has its origin in the Big Bang. The observations confirm the inflation theory of the early evolution of the Universe, which describes an explosive spurt of expansion



If you wish to complain about a theory without evidence to support it hen you need look no further than creationism. This is something that has no place in any classroom other than a mythology lesson.

It takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing - than to believe that something came from something.

Maybe you should look at the Big Bang theory…then you might discover what is wrong with your statement here.

 

[SnowBear]

There are several different areas where classic evolution struggles.

And if “classic” evolution was all to the theory of evolution you might have a point. Pretending that the theory stopped evolving at Darwin shows the desperation of your argument.

The Big Bang. We no longer have an infite period of time in a continuosly expanding and contracting universe, which was the previouslyheld theory.

You might try string theory it pretty much returns infinity to time. But as often noted and often ignored the big bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

There have been only about 400 million years since the earth cooled enough to support life. Most of the complex animal life we now have arose in the Cambrian period. Fossil records giving evidence for transitory forms is all but non existant.

A common and very dishonest statement.



http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/horses.htm#Horses

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/landtosea.htm#whales

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm#Transitionals



contains lists of thousands of transitional fossils.

The sudden appearance of mutliple and complex forms of life has not been explained as yet as demonstrably supporting evolution.

the time frame you are talking about is millions of years. something that occurs over the course of millions of years is anything but sudden.

More details are contained in the many publications now available. If a good education requires people to judge intelligently between options, then as full a set of information as possible should be given. A popular name for one sided presentations is propaganda.

yes the lie of creationism is propaganda

 

[xhristlives]

interesting question... here are some interestinf facts...
did u know that Darwin himself did not believe in the theory of evolution which he created, and came back to GOD!
also many ideas in evolution can be disproved but evolutionists just ignore ALL discrepancies in this theory- SO WHAT IF THEY ARE WRONG!!!
thus i suppose the crux of this argument is that children who get a state education should be given the FREEDOM to choose between creation or evolution..., not taught what could be wrong, amd affect their possible faith in GOD.

 

[SnowBear]

interesting question... here are some interestinf facts...
did u know that Darwin himself did not believe in the theory of evolution which he created, and came back to GOD!

The story of Darwin’s deathbed conversion to Christianity and his recanting of the theory of evolution is a well known lie.



The story that is told so often—and there are almost as many versions of it as there are storytellers—goes something like this. A certain friend of the Darwin family, Lady Hope, was herself a Bible believer found herself in the company of Mr. Darwin.just a few days before his death. At that time, so the account goes, she found him reading, somewhat to her surprise, the New Testament book of Hebrews. Upon further inquiry, Darwin began to speak about how he was so very young when he formed his ideas of evolution, and how he regretted that so many people had made those ideas their religion. He then insisted that Lady Hope return to his summerhouse that afternoon, at 3:00 pm, to read from the Bible to his servants, and nearby villagers. When she asked exactly what Darwin thought she should read, he is alleged to have turned to her with an emphatic voice and said, “Read about Christ and His salvation!” Lady Hope, so says the tale, quickly spread the good news that Darwin, now on his deathbed, had become a believer in God, and a Christian.

As with all spurious dramas such as this, it is impossible to trace the origin of this story. The search hardly is made easier when time after time the story is reprinted, attributing it only to “anonymous.” But on rare occasions the story, in reprinted form, actually has been attributed to an American journal published in years gone by, The Watchman Examiner. However, a search through all available issues of that publication has provided neither the original account nor any references to it. Similarly, on occasion the story is attributed, in reprinted form, to a book by Luther Townsend, The Collapse of Evolution, but that, too, has proved to be elusive. In short, each time a search is made for any kind of original documentation, it ends in the proverbial “dead end.” This alone should make the honest inquirer a bit suspicious. Were that the end of the matter, suspicions might be afforded the benefit of the doubt, and the account accepted as true. However, there are other data that, considered collectively, expose the dubious nature of the story—in any form.

The daughter of Charles Darwin, Henrietta, addressed this matter in a letter written on February 23, 1922 to The Christian, a religious journal. Her comments were as follows:

“I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought and belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think that story of his conversion was fabricated in the USA. In most of these versions, hymn singing comes in and a summerhouse where the servants and villagers sang hymns to him. There is no such summerhouse and no servants or villagers ever sang hymns to him. The whole story has no foundation whatsoever.”

 

[indra_fanatic]

I think the question has been framed improperly. The mainstream media wants to tell us that Christian conservatives only want scientific creationism taught in public schools. This is a blatant lie. All that we request is "equal time". There is a profound air of academic dishonesty afoot if we ONLY allow the teaching of one narrow, inflexible theory and its accompanying agenda.

 

[Arikay]

Some real interesting facts:

•Darwin recanting on his deathbed is a myth. It's called the "Lady Hope" story. Not only has Darwin's family claimed it was false, but the story gets most of it's details wrong, suggesting it never happened.
Of course, if Darwin recanted, it wouldn't make a difference to the last 100 years.

To add to what Snowbear has given, another quote from the lady hope story, Darwin supposably said,
"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

None of this is true. He wasn't young when he published Origins. He didn't throw out queries or suggestions but produced detailed studies with answers to possible rebutals. He expected his theory to be contreversial so he spent time making sure things were as solid as he could make them. His ideas didn't take on like wildfire. Darwin wouldn't have known anyone had made a religion out of it, or applied it to anything beyond biology as the ideas of social darwinism came about after his death (but oddly enough, after the earliest known date of this tale).

•What discrepancies?
Are these discrepancies more accurate than your first fact?

interesting question... here are some interestinf facts...
did u know that Darwin himself did not believe in the theory of evolution which he created, and came back to GOD!
also many ideas in evolution can be disproved but evolutionists just ignore ALL discrepancies in this theory- SO WHAT IF THEY ARE WRONG!!!
thus i suppose the crux of this argument is that children who get a state education should be given the FREEDOM to choose between creation or evolution..., not taught what could be wrong, amd affect their possible faith in GOD.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

interesting question... here are some interestinf facts...
did u know that Darwin himself did not believe in the theory of evolution which he created, and came back to GOD!

Isn't there something in your religion that requires and respects honesty? Why then are you so dishonest? Or is it merely that you are careless? Darwin never recanted his theory; he never "came back to god". He died an agnostic. Please, do some research before you post such nonsense.

also many ideas in evolution can be disproved but evolutionists just ignore ALL discrepancies in this theory- SO WHAT IF THEY ARE WRONG!!!

No, many ideas in evolution cannot be disproved. That's just rubbish.

If scientists are wrong...then their error will be discovered. By other scientists. That's how science works. They won't be discovered by religionists.

thus i suppose the crux of this argument is that children who get a state education should be given the FREEDOM to choose between creation or evolution..., not taught what could be wrong, amd affect their possible faith in GOD.

No, the crux of this argument is that children who get a state education should be taught science in science class, and religion elsewhere.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I think the question has been framed improperly. The mainstream media wants to tell us that Christian conservatives only want scientific creationism taught in public schools. This is a blatant lie. All that we request is "equal time". There is a profound air of academic dishonesty afoot if we ONLY allow the teaching of one narrow, inflexible theory and its accompanying agenda.

Sorry, but this post is just false. Creationists have been advocating for decades. Their advocacy has gone through a number of phases, as they have had successes and failures. But the end goal has always been to stop evolution being taught. That was the purpose of the very first legal attempts in the US (for example, the law involved in the Scopes trial) - to make it illegal to teach evolution. However, since the Supreme Court has killed their attempts to have evolution declared illegal, creationists have moved to pleading for 'equal time', since that's the best they can hope for at this stage.

But make no mistake - creationists want evolution out. It is, after all (according to them) anti-god and of satan.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

After 64+ pages, one is lead to several possible answers:
1) The question was already answered.
2) This should be in Christian Apologetics
3) The intent was something I can't name without breaking forum rules.