Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[EphesiaNZ]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As someone who went to a public school, I vaguely remember biology class about 15 years ago now. I don't remember being taught evolution, but we were taught geology (or rather, to research/regurgitate scientific views about geology, that stemmed from evolutionist thinking) but we were never taught to QUESTION evolutionary theory.

Well, that's a detriment to the quality of your school, not the quality of evolution. In my school, we were presented with the evidence (the large, easy-to-understand pieces, since we were only kids), and lead towards the conclusion. At each step we asked questions and got good, detailed answers to the issues our little brains thought up ("How could a flower know what colour bees like?", "Why don't humans evolve any more?", "Why haven't reptiles evolved any more?", etc).

If you have genuine questions about evolution, feel free to ask them in my thread (see my sig), or make your own post. There are plenty of people here knowledgeable enough and patient enough to answer anything you might ask .

I think its a good thing that people question the theory, because later on I did and found all sorts of things that didn't add up. I am not going to post them here but creationism trumps every silly theory and philosophy that scientists can speculate on.

See above. This is the 'Creation & Evolution' forum. This is quite the place to discuss such things.

And I wasn't a christian back when I went to school, but looking back, I wish they did teach the Bible or even that Jesus existed, then I wouldn't have been so miserable and filled my head with the rubbish that gets taught these days under the guise of knowledge.

There are laws against that sort of thing. If they teach Jesus, they should teach Muhammed and Buddha too

 

[Goodbook]

Well I do have some questions. Why is evolution so stupid? Whats the point of it?
Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God? Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite? Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory? What practical use is evolution? Why do evolutionists confuse variation within species with variation BETWEEN species. What evidence is there for uniformatism? Why do evolutionist think ancestors can be different species? Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants? Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man? Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories? Why does the evolutionary story sound just like science fiction? Why does Richard Dawkins make up animals in his 'Ancestor's tale'? Isn't a meme another figment of Dawkin's imagination?
How do you explain the evolution of sex? Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented and we just divided/cloned ourselves for survival of the fittest? Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks? The same with heckel's drawings? Aren't the names for the rocks divisions simply arbitrary? Why can't one find rock strata that reflects the diagrams in textbooks? Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright? How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart? How do evolutionists explain humans wearing clothing? How do they explain why we would think we have souls if we didn't have any? Why can't the natural man understand spiritual things? Does time have a beginning? If not, explain why time is circular. Why is it that when genes mutate there is always a loss off function and not an add of function? Why do evolutionist think that mutation leads to more functions if it is demonstrated the opposite?
I could go on..but if there is some to start with. Have fun trying to explain yourself.

 

[driewerf]

Why is evolution so stupid?

Is it stupid? People can be stupid. Each morning I see a stupid person in the bathroom's mirror.
But can a theory be stupid?

 

[driewerf]

Whats the point of it -evolution?

IThe theory of evolution gives us the most accurate description of the biological world. It is in accordance with all what is known in gentics, embryology, immunology, physiology, and even the geographical distribution of animal and plant species.


To use the phrase by Dobzhansy - who was an orthodox christian.
"In biology nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution".

 

[driewerf]

Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God?

I don't know what "evolutionists" are. i suppose - but coreect me if i'm wrong- you mean paleontogists.
Any way, your question is flawed. A lot of people whos study the theory of evolution are christian. There is simply no relationship between accepting evolution and relgious belief.
Even without searching in google I can name quite a bunch of people who are christian and teachoing evolution:
Dobzhansky, already mentionned was an orthodox christian.
Christian De Duve - a devout catholic and Nobel price winner.
Francis Collins - head of the Human Genome project, also catholic.
Robert Bakker - a real dino man, and Pentecoastal preacher.


The two last popes, Carol Woytila and Joseph Ratzinger, declared that there is no contradiction between the bible and the Theory of Evolution - one you can hardly claim not to admit god's existence.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

O, there is also the Clergy Project:
The Clergy Letter Project

 

[driewerf]

Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants?

No evolutionary tree for plants? Here you are:
Plant Physiology Online: The Plant Kingdom

 

[jonsun80]

why are all evolutionists homosexual communists then?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well I do have some questions. Why is evolution so stupid? Whats the point of it?

The point of it is to explain the biological diversity we see around us. A single common ancestor which replicated and replicated is the ancestor of all life, and evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which its offspring diversified into the millions of species alive today.

Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God?

The majority of evolutionists do believe in God, and the majority of Christians also believe in evolution. The two are not incompatible.

Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite?

Because there are several well-documented phenomena that occur over long periods of time. By looking at how far along a particular object is in that process, we can see how old it is. For example, plants take in Carbon dioxide in the air and turn it into the various carbon-based molecules in them. While the plant is alive, the Carbon atoms are continually shed and replaced. A certain percentage of Carbon in the atmopshere is called Carbon-14, and when the plant is alive, the plant has that same percentage in its own body, since that's the origin of all the carbon in it. The important feature of Carbon-14 is that it decays into the more common Carbon-12 over a very specific period of time (namely, it takes 5,400 for half of any given sample of C14 to decay into C12). But, when it dies, it can no longer replace the carbon in its body. So, upon death, this C14 is decaying into C12 and not being replaced. Therefore, we can look at the ratio of C14 to C12, and calculate just when the plant died.

This is called radiometric dating , and we can do similar things with all sorts of radioactive decay chains, all of which are completely independent and have a variety of uses.

So that is why we believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory?

What data are you referring to?

What practical use is evolution?

This article has some good information. Of course, evolution doesn't need to have practical applications in order for it to be true, but it does anyway - paternity and maternity tests, antibiotic resistance, farms, public health policy, endangered species protection, etc, all make advances based on evolution, and wouldn't work if evolution wasn't true. Antibiotic resistance, for instance, is the quintessential example of evolution at work.

Why do evolutionists confuse variation within species with variation BETWEEN species.

We don't. We coined two terms to distinguish between them: microevolution and macroevolution. They're both well-evidenced phenomena.

What evidence is there for uniformatism?

If you're referring to uniformitarianism, the idea that geological, nuclear, etc, processes occur in much the same way now as they always have done, the short answer is that we don't really ascribe to it much nowadays. We basically take a case-by-case analysis on whether uniformitarianism can be applied - it is all too easy that an anomalous event occurred. Fortunately, we can test for such things.

Why do evolutionist think ancestors can be different species?

Are you asking why the ancestor of a modern species can be a different species? If so, the answer is that long-term microevolution can lead to the population changing greatly over time, to the extent that a modern individual wouldn't be able to breed with an individual from the ancestor species. Obviously, each mother and daughter are the same species, but the mother might not be the same species as her great-great-x100-granddaughters.

Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants?

We do. Click the image for a high-resolution tree of life. A more detailed one of the plant kingdom is this (time increases up the left):

Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man?

We didn't: these hoaxes were revealed by evolution because it didn't fit with all the new evidence we were getting. It became increasingly apparent that it was anomalous, so we took it out of the box and retested it with new methods - and it was demonstrated, using scientific techniques, to be a hoax.

Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories? Why does the evolutionary story sound just like science fiction? Why does Richard Dawkins make up animals in his 'Ancestor's tale'?

To create a point.

Isn't a meme another figment of Dawkin's imagination?

A 'meme' is the cultural analogy of a 'gene', something that can be inherited over time and undergoes something similar to 'evolution' - those ideas which are easy to spread are the ones that do spread, while those which are hard to believe aren't believed. It doesn't have anything to do with actual, biological evolution, however.

How do you explain the evolution of sex? Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented and we just divided/cloned ourselves for survival of the fittest?

In some cases, yes, which is why asexual reproduction still exists. However, sexual reproduction does confer benefits of its own: a greater pool of mutations to draw on. By reproducing sexually, we are better able to react to changes in the environment.

Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks? The same with heckel's drawings?

The evolution of the pepper moth is not a fabrication:

Aren't the names for the rocks divisions simply arbitrary? Why can't one find rock strata that reflects the diagrams in textbooks?

You can:

Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright? How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart?

Because they weren't. Lucy's bones were found together in one piece. The myth that they were miles apart comes from the misrepresentation of the facts, perhaps accidentally, by the Creationist magazine Bible-Science Newsletter - there was indeed something found several miles away from Lucy, but it was a knee joint that was never attributed to Lucy. Look at pictures of her skeleton - she has never been given knees.

This is a good article of the whole thing.

How do evolutionists explain humans wearing clothing?

The 'loss' of human hair is much debated, but the basic idea is we evolved the ability to lose heat by sweating, which hair inhibits. By making our hair so thin as to appear non-existent, we can lose heat very effectively. However, hair still serves some purpose: aesthetic (hence why pubic and underarm hair exists), protective (hence why eyebrows and eyelashes exist), and a sort of natural sunblock (hence why head hair exists - the Sun beats down almost entirely on the top of our heads when we walk upright).

But as we migrated to colder climates and developed agriculture, we developed a need for warmth. Hence, clothes.

How do they explain why we would think we have souls if we didn't have any?

Who says we don't have any?

Why can't the natural man understand spiritual things?

Who says the natural man can't?

Does time have a beginning? If not, explain why time is circular.

There are more options than 'time must have a beginning or be circular'. I could quite easily shrug and say 'I don't know' - and that would not affect the veracity of evolution in the slightest.

Why is it that when genes mutate there is always a loss off function and not an add of function? Why do evolutionist think that mutation leads to more functions if it is demonstrated the opposite?

Because there is a plethora of experiments which show the addition of function. The most famous of these is the Lenski E. coli experiments - after 20 years of study, it was discovered that one flask of E. coli had evolved the ability to take in citric acid directly from the environment. This is a very useful trait, and is not present in any E. coli hitherto seen. It is the quintessential example of evolution creating new functions and abilities. Wikipedia has a very good article on it.

I could go on..but if there is some to start with. Have fun trying to explain yourself.

I did have fun, thank you I know it's a long post, and I don't expect a detailed retort from each one, but hopefully this puts to rest some misconceptions about evolution. Feel free to ask more, on these or other issues!

 

[driewerf]

How do you explain the evolution of sex? Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented and we just divided/cloned ourselves for survival of the fittest?

First, a lot of species don't have sex, but indeed multiplie by cell division, or by cloning. Of course all unicellular organisms do this, but a lot of plants do this too.

Now, about your question:" Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented?" maybe, yes. And so what? Scientifc theories don't describe the world the way we like it, or the way we think is the easiest. Science describes the world the way it is. And our liking or unlikings don't count.

personally I had liked that chocolate would have a hihger content of vitamin A, in stead of spinach. Alas, the world doesn't adapt itself to my wishes.

 

[Cabal]

Tut tut WC, you missed one!

Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks? The same with heckel's drawings?

Haeckel's drawings are a little different to the peppered moth study (which as WC correctly points out, wasn't a fabrication).

Haeckel originally drew his embryos back in the 19th, and was claiming that they supported his theory where the embryos of a species develop through phases where they resemble the species they descended from.

He was wrong, but the important point is this - the similarities between early stage embryos are real ones, and Haeckel's drawings are not used to support his discredited theory. All they're used for is to point out the similarities between early stage embryos which is a fact. Personally, I'd prefer they used photos - much more striking.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Tut tut WC, you missed one!

So I did! I'm more surprised you were able to spot it

 

[mzungu]

Well I do have some questions. Why is evolution so stupid? Whats the point of it?
Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God? Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite? Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory? What practical use is evolution? Why do evolutionists confuse variation within species with variation BETWEEN species. What evidence is there for uniformatism? Why do evolutionist think ancestors can be different species? Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants? Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man? Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories? Why does the evolutionary story sound just like science fiction? Why does Richard Dawkins make up animals in his 'Ancestor's tale'? Isn't a meme another figment of Dawkin's imagination?
How do you explain the evolution of sex? Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented and we just divided/cloned ourselves for survival of the fittest? Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks? The same with heckel's drawings? Aren't the names for the rocks divisions simply arbitrary? Why can't one find rock strata that reflects the diagrams in textbooks? Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright? How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart? How do evolutionists explain humans wearing clothing? How do they explain why we would think we have souls if we didn't have any? Why can't the natural man understand spiritual things? Does time have a beginning? If not, explain why time is circular. Why is it that when genes mutate there is always a loss off function and not an add of function? Why do evolutionist think that mutation leads to more functions if it is demonstrated the opposite?
I could go on..but if there is some to start with. Have fun trying to explain yourself.

Why don't you start by reading about the subjects you are asking about and once you have a rudimentary grasp of the fundamentals of the pertinent science then feel free to ask; But, pasting so called questions from creationist sites with intent on refuting science while disguised as questions is hardly an honest way of going about it!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you start by reading about the subjects you are asking about and once you have a rudimentary grasp of the fundamentals of the pertinent science then feel free to ask; But, pasting so called questions from creationist sites with intent on refuting science while disguised as questions is hardly an honest way of going about it!

You mean like this one: 1 ?http://www.christianforums.com/t16190/#post215433

 

[mzungu]

You mean like this one: 1 ?

LOL! I was referring to science books. There are many books written for the layman that help one to understand the basics of a scientific field. One does not need to be a rocket scientist in order to understand the importance of escape velocity.

I am astounded at some of the questions some creationists ask; They are tantamount to an atheist asking something like: "Since Jesus was born in Mongolia then how did he preach in synagogues in Palestine". Silly? Yes! Ignorant? Totally.

I cannot pass judgement on something I know absolutely nothing about. In fact if I am totally ignorant of a subject then I am, in no position to accept nor refute arguments in favour or against that subject.

Creationism is FAITH! Evolution is a scientific Theory! There cannot be a comparison between them since they are totally different things.

If I were to judge your faith by using Field mice social behaviour then you will be in your rights to tell me to either go read the Bible or attend Church and or speak to a priest before I go blabbering such inconsistencies.

Judge not lest you be judged in return!



Tonight I and most of my compatriots (atheists and not) will attend Church for the resurrection. We do so because We identify with Christianity as also a traditional tie with our nationhood. So happy Easter everyone!

 

[Hespera]

As someone who went to a public school, I vaguely remember biology class about 15 years ago now. I don't remember being taught evolution, but we were taught geology (or rather, to research/regurgitate scientific views about geology, that stemmed from evolutionist thinking) but we were never taught to QUESTION evolutionary theory.

I think its a good thing that people question the theory, because later on I did and found all sorts of things that didn't add up. I am not going to post them here but creationism trumps every silly theory and philosophy that scientists can speculate on. God makes sense, God doesn't lie. Man tries to complicate things, and lies. People come up with all evidence trying to fit a theory, and ignore the evidence that contradicts the theory. Data gets massaged. People look at something, and then try to extrapolate backwards in times assuming things have always stayed the same, or will in the future. Correlation is often confused with causation. All this sort of stuff goes on in science, something new gets added, and the old is 'proven' wrong, and you are always searching, always learning, but never coming to the truth. Junk science gets taught alongside real science.

However the bible says Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever. And the gospels are the compilations of eyewitness account.

I wasn't a christian back when I went to school, but looking back, I wish they did teach the Bible or even that Jesus existed, then I wouldn't have been so miserable and filled my head with the rubbish that gets taught these days under the guise of knowledge. And it seems to me most evolutionists seem afraid to admit that God exists, and created the world and works in people's lives. They are too busy inflating their own egos thinking they are smart and can control their own destiny, but that is the lie of Satan.

I think its a good thing that people question the theory, because later on I did and found all sorts of things that didn't add up.

YOU personally did not find anything, tho, did you? You didnt do any research. What you "found" was people who lied to you and convinced you of what you wanted to hear.

Im sure you wont post those things that dont add up; there arent any.

 

[Split Rock]

Well I do have some questions.

Let's see if they are more than the usual ad hominens and P.R.A.T.T. lists...

Why is evolution so stupid?

Oh, I guess they aren't!

I could go on..but if there is some to start with. Have fun trying to explain yourself.

Looks like Wiccan Child took care of that for you! He explained why evolution is the only scientific theory explaining the diversity and distribution of life on earth. I don't supose you care, though.

 

[Upisoft]

Looks like Wiccan Child took care of that for you! He explained why evolution is the only scientific theory explaining the diversity and distribution of life on earth. I don't supose you care, though.

You made a mistake. ToE is the only scientific theory we are aware of that explains the diversity ...etc.

 

[her2011]

We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)

In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).

I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism

I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)

 

[Delphiki]

I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)

As it should be. The real science version in a science class and the religious version taught in church or religious private school.