Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[mzungu]

ToE leads to all kinds of fallacies, including racist eugenics thinking.

Far from it; The Genome project proved that all humans are one species and the differences are so minute genetically as to render them unimportant. A blonde Swede may be more genetically compatible with a Nubian African than with a fellow Swede.

On the other hand the Bible is full of racially biased dogma.

Here watch the full 5 episodes and then speak:

The Search for Adam | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

OK AV still hasn't responded to this so I'm going to ask again:

AV could you please tell me in your own words why you have a problem with creation being taught in a mythology class?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK AV still hasn't responded to this so I'm going to ask again:

AV could you please tell me in your own words why you have a problem with creation being taught in a mythology class?

For the same reason I have Columbus coming to America being taught in mythology class.

Creationism is history -- not mythology.

And I'll post this passage a second time:

2 Corinthians 6:15a And what concord hath Christ with Belial?

Now what? are you going to ask me a third time?

 

[Delphiki]

In short: AV thinks the bible is every bit as historically accurate on it's own as events that have material evidence and records. He doesn't know his religion is just a religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

In short: AV thinks the bible is every bit as historically accurate on it's own as events that have material evidence and records. He doesn't know his religion is just a religion.

Nice word change -- but it's not fooling me.

Did you mean to say, "I don't think my religion is just a religion"?

Or are you the one saying my religion is just a religion, but using me to say it?

 

[Delphiki]

Nice word change -- but it's not fooling me.

Did you mean to say, "I don't think my religion is just a religion"?

Or are you the one saying my religion is just a religion, but using me to say it?

It's pretty well established that a duck is a duck and a religion is a religion. You follow a religion. You simply don't realize the difference between your religion and actual historic events. Hence, why you think creationism (a part of your religion) should be taught in history class. You are simply opposed to freedom of religion and think everyone should believe the same thing you do. At least, that's what you've shown us thus far.

 

[mzungu]

For the same reason I have Columbus coming to America being taught in mythology class.

Creationism is history -- not mythology.

And I'll post this passage a second time:

2 Corinthians 6:15a And what concord hath Christ with Belial?

Now what? are you going to ask me a third time?

If we are to accept that Biblical creation is not mythology then you have to accept all the various creation stories of all religions to be historical facts too. This will obviously lead to a mess worse than the which Bible translation is the true!

Sorry AV but Biblical creation belongs to the realms of faith. For it to be Historical fact we need to know the author(s), time, and supporting evidence of the happening. All we have is a story that is based on ancient Summerian and Greek mythology.

The adam and apple part complete with the snake is Summerian while the "in the beginning" part it is based on Greek mythology.

You could claim that all this proves is that it is supporting evidence that it happened since both the Greeks and Summerians have the same story. Well they don't; It is two completely different stories knitted into one.

I do not wish to attack your faith AV; far from it. All I am saying is that we must not confuse Spiritual Faith with science. After all science can take a hike eh

 

[AV1611VET]

It's pretty well established that a duck is a duck and a religion is a religion.

Okay.

You follow a religion.

I prefer to call it a 'relationship' -- but I'll answer from your perspective.

You simply don't realize the difference between your religion and actual historic events.

I wasn't there, and neither were you -- but you're running on popularity and opinions, and I'm running on faith.

Hence, why you think creationism (a part of your religion) should be taught in history class.

Ya -- why wouldn't I? do you blame me? (please answer this one.)

You are simply opposed to freedom of religion and think everyone should believe the same thing you do.

I wasn't aware of that.

Would I be better off if I believed the way you do?

At least, that's what you've shown us thus far.

No, I haven't.

If you read some of my posts, you should notice I've brought up freedom of religion several times.

You, on the other hand, seem to want freedom from religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we are to accept that Biblical creation is not mythology then you have to accept all the various creation stories of all religions to be historical facts too.

Just the opposite.

What do you think a KJVO is, anyway? a believer in the Koran as well?

This will obviously lead to a mess worse than the which Bible translation is the true!

Let me use one of your examples to pwn this point:

Pluto is still Pluto, despite the fact that there are now 500 more objects found that would, as you just put it, 'lead to a mess worse than ...'

You plutoed a planet by a popular [and rigged] vote -- I choose not to pluto my faith.

 

[Greg1234]

If we are to accept that Biblical creation is not mythology then you have to accept all the various creation stories of all religions to be historical facts too.

Actually the building of the Great Pyramid by the Egyptians is Creationism. Within that you have the Egyptians who are humans and would belong to a biology class, the building of the Great Pyramid which is Engineering, and the study of ancient civilizations which would belong in a history class. Intelligent Design is the engineering aspect of biological organisms and the only reason we don't teach intelligent design for the Great Pyramid is because everyone has faith that it was designed.

This will obviously lead to a mess worse than the which Bible translation is the true!

No it just shows that purely naturalistic processes including the reigning king of this epoch [Random mutation and Natural Selection in tandem) is impotent. The leap of distraction is a part of the whole "run" set, which includes "messes" like "Who created God?",

Sorry AV but Biblical creation belongs to the realms of faith. For it to be Historical fact we need to know the author(s), time, and supporting evidence of the happening. All we have is a story that is based on ancient Summerian and Greek mythology.

You have man.

The adam and apple part complete with the snake is Summerian while the "in the beginning" part it is based on Greek mythology.

Because the beginning occurred in Greece. Everywhere else was without one.

You could claim that all this proves is that it is supporting evidence that it happened since both the Greeks and Summerians have the same story. Well they don't; It is two completely different stories knitted into one.

Which through analysis outline that man was intelligently designed.

I do not wish to attack your faith AV; far from it. All I am saying is that we must not confuse Spiritual Faith with science. After all science can take a hike eh

Science merely deals with the study and documentation of repeatable effects through a given cause.

 

[Delphiki]

Okay.

I prefer to call it a 'relationship' -- but I'll answer from your perspective.

I wasn't there, and neither were you -- but you're running on popularity and opinions, and I'm running on faith.

You forgot evidence, logic, and rationality as well. Things that happen in the bible are fantastical and absurd, in addition to not having a lick of evidence: Water to wine, multiplying fish to eat, walking on water, curing leprosy with a touch, talking snakes, unicorns, etc. This is why it doesn't count as history, but religion. Just to remind you, polytheism used to be a popular religious belief, and is not considered mythology.

Ya -- why wouldn't I? do you blame me? (please answer this one.)

I've already answered. You fail to recognize the difference between your religion and historic fact. Which is why you think your religion should be taught in history. If you wish to know the difference, read my previous paragraph in this post.

I wasn't aware of that.

This is common among many theocratic people and fundamentalists. They have rarely have any idea they are a component of fascism.

Would I be better off if I believed the way you do?

Probably. Though you have every right to believe what you believe. They have churches for that. Try to indoctrinate my children into your religion in a publicly funded environment like the classroom, then we'll have a problem.

No, I haven't.

Yes. Your stance that creationism should be taught as history shows exactly that: You think everyone should believe as you do.

If you read some of my posts, you should notice I've brought up freedom of religion several times.

That's the problem with many religious people. They think "freedom of religion" means "freedom to make everyone be their religion only".

You, on the other hand, seem to want freedom from religion.

I think it would be nice to only indoctrinate those who chose to be indoctrinated. Bring a bible or Quran to school -- I don't care. Pray all you want in school. Fine. Making the kids pray and making them believe creationism is historically accurate (a religious belief)?-- that is what I oppose.

The religiously diverse public pays for public schools, and as such, public schools should remain officially neutral in regards to religion -- which, btw, is what "secular" actually means.

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot evidence, logic, and rationality as well.

All of which skates on ice and consistently plutoes itself.

Things that happen in the bible are fantastical and absurd...

'Fantastical', I'll agree with; 'absurd', I'll hold in abeyance; and speaking of forgetting, you forgot 'miraculous'.

... in addition to not having a lick of evidence:

That's right.

Water to wine, multiplying fish to eat, walking on water, curing leprosy with a touch, talking snakes, unicorns, etc.

Nice sentence -- subject without a predicate.

This is why it doesn't count as history, but religion.

You're going to discuss everything but creationism, aren't you?

Just to remind you, polytheism used to be a popular religious belief, and is not considered mythology.

I'm sure it still is too.

I've already answered.

I suppose you think you have -- and that's all that counts, isn't it?

You fail to recognize the difference between your religion and historic fact.

At least I know the difference between 'my religion' and someone else's.

'Historic fact' -- in the schools -- is a contradiction in terms.

Ever heard of historic revisionism, or the Battle of Bunker's Hill?

Which is why you think your religion should be taught in history.

I'll say this for about the 10th time: Creationism should be taught as history, not science.

You seem to be hearing: My religion should be taught as history, not science.

You're a difficult person to talk too.

If you wish to know the difference, read my previous paragraph in this post.

Why?

In my opinion, you're confused.

This is common among many theocratic people and fundamentalists. They have rarely have any idea they are a component of fascism.

Have a good day -- this is a good place to end this nonsense.

 

[Hespera]

still waiting on pre-cambrian explosion evolution evidence...............

waiting for you to realize there was no pre cambrian explosion

 

[Delphiki]

I'll say this for about the 10th time: Creationism should be taught as history, not science.

You seem to be hearing: My religion should be taught as history, not science.

Do you even recognize that the creation story you believe is merely a component of your religion? "Teaching creationism as history" is the same as "indoctrinating students to your religion".

 

[Hespera]

Do you even recognize that the creation story you believe is merely a component of your religion? "Teaching creationism as history" is the same as "indoctrinating students to your religion".

here is a list of fields of study that would have to all be filled with frauds and fakers, all with the same agenda, if "evolution is false"
acarology
aerobiology
aerology
agrobiology
agrology
agronomics
agrostology
algology
anthropobiology
apiology
arachnology
archaeology
areology
astacology
astrogeology
astronomy
astrophysics
astroseismology
audiology
autecology
bacteriology
barology
bioecology
biology
biometrics
bionomics
botany
brontology
bryology
caliology
carcinology
caricology
carpology
cetology
chemistry
chorology
chronobiology
chrysology
climatology
coleopterology
cometology
cosmology
craniology
cryobiology
cytology
demology
dendrochronology
dendrology
dialectology
dioptrics
dysteleology
eccrinology
ecology
edaphology
egyptology
ekistics
embryology
entomology
entozoology
enzymology
epidemiology
eremology
ethnogeny
ethnology
ethology
etiology
exobiology
gastroenterology
genealogy
genesiology
geochemistry
geochronology
geogeny
geogony
geography
geology
geomorphogeny
geoponics
geotechnics
glaciology
gnotobiology
graminology
gromatics
heliology
herpetology
hippiatrics
hippology
historiology
hoplology
horography
horology
horticulture
hydrobiology
hydrodynamics
hydrogeology
hydrography
hydrokinetics
hydrology
hydrometeorology
hyetology
hygrology
hygrometry
hypsography
ichnology
ichthyology
ideogeny
immunogenetics
immunology
immunopathology
insectology
karyology
kinematics
kinesiology
kinetics
koniology
kymatology
larithmics
lepidopterology
lichenology
limacology
limnobiology
limnology
linguistics
lithology
loimology
magnetics
malacology
malariology
mammalogy
mastology
mathematics
mechanics
melittology
metallogeny
metallography
meteoritics
meteorology
microanatomy
microbiology
microclimatology
micropalaeontology
microphytology
mineralogy
momilogy
morphology
muscology
mycology
myology
myrmecology
nautics
nematology
neossology
nidology
nosology
oceanography
oceanology
oology
ophiology
ophthalmology
optics
optology
orchidology
ornithology
orology
orthopterology
oryctology
osteology
palaeoanthropology
palaeobiology
palaeoclimatology
palaeolimnology
palaeolimnology
palaeontology
palaeopedology
paleobotany
paleo-osteology
palynology
parasitology
pathology
pedology
pelology
pestology
petrology
pharmacognosy
pharmacology
phenology
philology
phonology
photobiology
phycology
physics
physiology
phytology
piscatology
planetology
pneumatics
polemology
potamology
primatology
psychobiology
pteridology
pterylology
pyretology
raciology
radiology
rheology
sedimentology
seismology
selenodesy
selenology
sigillography
sinology
sociobiology
sociology
somatology
speleology
spermology
sphagnology
statics
stoichiology
stratigraphy
systematology
teuthology
thalassography
theriatrics
theriogenology
thermodynamics
thermokinematics
thermology
therology
thremmatology
tidology
topology
tribology
uranography
urbanology
urenology
venereology
vermeology
virology
vulcanology
xylology
zenography
zoogeography
zoology
zoonomy
zoopathology
zoophysiology
zoophytology
zootaxy
zootechnics

 

[Skavau]

I'll say this for about the 10th time: Creationism should be taught as history, not science.

What, pray tell, regarding Creationism should be taught as history? Are you talking modern day movements like the Discovery Institute and their predecessors or centuries old creationist thinkers? Or both?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you even recognize that the creation story you believe is merely a component of your religion?

I sure hope so.

"Teaching creationism as history" is the same as "indoctrinating students to your religion".

Creationism is a religion, is it? is evolution?

Does teaching evolution as history indoctrinate students to your religion as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

What, pray tell, regarding Creationism should be taught as history?

You can read about it yourself in Genesis 1, which would be the sole text.

 

[Delphiki]

Does teaching evolution as history indoctrinate students to your religion as well?

Teaching evolution is teaching science. Science is not a religion. This is why it's important to realize the relevance of evidence and testing -- so you can have the capability to distinguish the difference.

 

[Skavau]

You can read about it yourself in Genesis 1, which would be the sole text.

Why should the origins story of the Bible be taught as if it happened in school?