Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Hupomone10]

Indeed, and that phenomenon is called evolution.

Yes it is. And many such as myself believe in evolution.

I might add, you also believe in creation my friend.

 

[Upisoft]

If there really are extra-terrestrials and they ever come here, evolutionists are really gonna make us all look like stone-age imbeciles, and will probably convince them quickly that no intelligent communication can be hoped for in this species.

Indeed, thankfully God send them Jesus and they already know. Actually we must expect them soon, as they will be here any moment. They have to check the claims for the prophesies, you know.. the destruction of the temple, the genealogy of Jesus... etc.

 

[Hupomone10]

With all due respect, you hold this point of view only because you have no idea why ToE is the best theory right now.

In the evolutionary theory based on naturalism being behind all, there is no "best." Best or better is a subjective moralistic judgment. If there are no absolute morals, then there is no best, therefore there is no best theory, there are only theories. Creation by design is a theory, evolutionism is a theory. I'm sorry, a hypothesis.

 

[Hupomone10]

Indeed, thankfully God send them Jesus and they already know. Actually we must expect them soon, as they will be here any moment. They have to check the claims for the prophesies, you know.. the destruction of the temple, the genealogy of Jesus... etc.

Do you have documentation to back this up?

If you truly believe this and aren't just trying to be sarcastic, I do understand; for this is as believable as the philosophy of all complex life evolving upwards by mass/energy shaped by pure chance, and I don't want to demean your belief.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Cabal]

I haven't made my point very clearly. The point was that the evolutionists "drew first blood". Creation was only suggested and fought for because evolutionism was being forced on all children. Only one position, and all were indoctrinated into the party line, especially teachers.

My point is that neither should be allowed or both should be allowed. So, if one is required, the other should be required. But neither should be. That's just my opinion.

Except there's no reason to, as they're not equivalent.

Creationism is religiously motivated assertion, and evolution is factual science.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Like I said, when someone is bleeding from a car wreck or needs cancer treatment, they don't particularly care whether man came from apes or birds came from dinosaurs.

Frankly, you're wrong - especially about cancer. Cancer is treated with evolutionary principles in mind. Giving a single chemotherapy agent puts a selective pressure on the cancer cells, where the cells that mutate to become resistant become resistant. Take breast cancer for instance. If a breast cancer responds to estrogen (meaning, the estrogen signaling pathway is one of the pathways it is using to grow), that means if we block estrogen signaling, we can slow tumor growth and kill tumor cells. But some of the cells are going to mutate to find other ways to grow, and eventually that treatment isn't going to work anymore. This is an evolutionary principle.

The same goes for infections. The older generations of doctors have over-used antibiotics to the point where whole classes of them are becoming useless. Why is that? Because microorganisms evolve resistance. It's an evolutionary principle. If you're a Creationist doctor and don't understand this, all you'll be doing is learning how to get really good at calling the time of death when someone comes in with pneumonia and the penicillin isn't working.

You may be right; it might be that for 4 years of college he didn't need it, and suddenly at the entrance to med school they may require him to be a card-carrying member of the evolutionist party, but I don't think so. And having spent 15 years in a church with a fairly large percentage of people from the medical profession due to the location of the church who embraced creation instead of the evolutionary dogma, I'm not particularly worried for him.

Your doctor buddies probably weren't educated the same way we are now. Medical school has taken the plunge into molecular biology and genetics, where evolution has its fingers deeply imbedded. You don't have to believe me, but I'm actually in medical school.

The importance of evolution is grossly, grossly, grossly overestimated. It is only important if the people in the educational system demand it; and if they do, they show their bias. They make belief in the philosophy of evolution the new membership card to their club.

Blessings,
H.

You really are oblivious to what the science says. I guess that's ok - I don't expect lay people without a firm understanding of science to understand why evolution is true or why we need to teach evolution. Believe me, I know where you're coming from - my conservative Christian parents homeschooled me for a while. But I'll tell you what I would tell them if I was honest with them: despite your good intentions, you are flat-out wrong about evolution. If you want to learn about evolution, ask any questions you may have. But if you want to just plug your ears and keep repeating mantras, don't waste your time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism is religiously motivated assertion, and evolution is factual science.

No, it's not.

Creationism is history, and [macro]evolution is error doctrine.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

No, it's not.

Creationism is history, and [macro]evolution is error doctrine.

Post a thread where you prove evolution wrong, then.

 

[Cabal]

Post a thread where you prove evolution wrong, then.

Oh, and provide empirical evidence for creationism too, naturally.

Wouldn't want them to fall into any false dichotomies, after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post a thread where you prove evolution wrong, then.

Proving evolution wrong is a privilege reserved for Jesus Christ when He returns.

Evolution, in the meantime, will be strengthened by the Antichrist when he demonstrates abiogenesis by giving 'life' to an image.

 

[Jro]

Proving evolution wrong is a privilege reserved for Jesus Christ when He returns.

Evolution, in the meantime, will be strengthened by the Antichrist when he demonstrates abiogenesis by giving 'life' to an image.

Ha, I just love that we should be watching scientists for the antichrist who are, by and large, nerdy, idiosyncratic weirdoes (you know it's true) while there are such very, very evil people in the world.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Ha, I just love that we should be watching scientists for the antichrist who are, by and large, nerdy, idiosyncratic weirdoes (you know it's true) while there are such very, very evil people in the world.

This makes for better plot twists in his Left Behind Fan Fic, though.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Proving evolution wrong is a privilege reserved for Jesus Christ when He returns.

Evolution, in the meantime, will be strengthened by the Antichrist when he demonstrates abiogenesis by giving 'life' to an image.

You could save us a lot of trouble by disproving the Antichrist before he shows up. You'd save all of our souls. So get to work! That is, if you care about our souls. And I'm being serious. If Jesus can disprove evolution, you, as his follower, can too.

Why else do you post in this forum if not to combat evolution? Actually make a reasoned argument that shows it to be false. Otherwise, you're wasting your time here.

 

[Incariol]

No, it's not.

Creationism is history, and [macro]evolution is error doctrine.

Please take a telescope, point it at 5h 38m 42.43s -69.06, and report back with what you see.

 

[Upisoft]

Please take a telescope, point it at 5h 38m 42.43s -69.06, and report back with what you see.

Blue elephant?

 

[Incariol]

Blue elephant?

No, just the right ascension and declination of a visible celestial object that Creationists would say is too far away for us to see the light from at this point.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, it's not.

Creationism is history, and [macro]evolution is error doctrine.

Wrong as usual, AV.

Creationism is mythology, and evolution is the backbone of biology, zoology, and probably a few other ologies I can't think of off the top of my head.

 

[Hespera]

I haven't made my point very clearly. The point was that the evolutionists "drew first blood". Creation was only suggested and fought for because evolutionism was being forced on all children. Only one position, and all were indoctrinated into the party line, especially teachers.

My point is that neither should be allowed or both should be allowed. So, if one is required, the other should be required. But neither should be. That's just my opinion.

Blessings,
H.

why do you say "evolutionism" even though you know it is wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please take a telescope, point it at 5h 38m 42.43s -69.06, and report back with what you see.

Ferdinand Magellan?

 

[Fahrrad]

Creation was only suggested and fought for because evolutionism was being forced on all children. Only one position, and all were indoctrinated into the party line, especially teachers.

I guess it's just ethically wrong to teach children that 1 + 1 = 2 as well.