Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Cabal]

Excuse me, but Peoples Temple is not 'my brand of religion'.

Whatever. It's the arrogance with which you dismiss every single viewpoint that's not exactly in line with yours - which isn't exactly rationally supported to begin with.

Like I said, such behaviour doesn't exactly endear people, so you're hardly doing well by your commission.

 

[hollyda]

Why stop there? What about the use of physics and chemistry to ritualistically shoot millions of Jews?

Nah. Our sacrifice was a volunteer. What you propose sounds too much like something you'd find in the fundamentalist/conservative congregations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever. It's the arrogance with which you dismiss every single viewpoint that's not exactly in line with yours - which isn't exactly rationally supported to begin with.

Arrogance is subjective, and for the record, if you want to go on a crusade against arrogance, I have a couple of referrals -- assuming you're not being selective.

Like I said, such behaviour doesn't exactly endear people, so you're hardly doing well by your commission.

What do you want me to do? wash your feet first?

Your fake disdain against my 'arrogance' is plastic -- clean up your own roster first please.

 

[Hupomone10]

My question for creationists in this forum is:

First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism

Do you believe that creationism should be taught either with or in place of evolution in public school science classes?

When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.

My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure and then sit for the remainder of their life. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypothesis that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.

it is possible for someone to have a particular religious belief, but not want it taught in public schools because they believe it is not the proper place to teach it.

I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.

I think it is a very bad idea to teach a religious concept as if it was science and to force public school teachers and school districts to include creationism (either Scientific Creationism or I.D.) in their science curriculum.

I don't understand the point. Please define "bad" and what reference we have for determining something is bad as opposed to good. The philosophy of an ever-changing naturalistic universe of matter and energy shaped by chance argues against a "bad" and a "good" and only for a survival and adaptation environment where nothing is considered either bad or good; what survives survives.

My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.

I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public. It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.

My use of "evolutionism" and "creation" is not to be contrary, but merely to point out that there is bias also in the evolution community, even from the very foundation of the argument. Not from you, but from those who have termed it so.

Thanks,
H.

 

[Cabal]

Arrogance is subjective, and for the record, if you want to go on a crusade against arrogance, I have a couple of referrals -- assuming you're not being selective.

I'm not - I said that your viewpoint isn't rationally supported. Mine is. Apples and oranges.

What do you want me to do? wash your feet first?

When someone mentions that they have had some church experience, basic newbie error is to go "fnarr fnarr wrong church lol" like you did.

Your fake disdain against my 'arrogance' is plastic -- clean up your own roster first please.

When you have a decent reason to prefer one personal interpretation of the Bible over another, I'll get right on that.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.

FYI, evolutionary principles are very important in medicine and are taught extensively in medical school. At my school, I know some pretty dang conservative Christians but they all accept the reality of evolution and it doesn't seem to harm them one bit.

If you son ends up in medical school, he'll be in for a rude awakening and a lot of confusion during his microbiology, oncology, embryology, and anatomy coursework for sure. So you've essentially ill-prepared him.

 

[mzungu]

FYI, evolutionary principles are very important in medicine and are taught extensively in medical school. At my school, I know some pretty dang conservative Christians but they all accept the reality of evolution and it doesn't seem to harm them one bit.

If you son ends up in medical school, he'll be in for a rude awakening and a lot of confusion during his microbiology, oncology, embryology, and anatomy coursework for sure. So you've essentially ill-prepared him.

Why are creationists hell bent on regressing the USA into the stone age?

 

[Hespera]

First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism
When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.

My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure and then sit for the remainder of their life. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypothesis that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.
I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.
I don't understand the point. Please define "bad" and what reference we have for determining something is bad as opposed to good. The philosophy of an ever-changing naturalistic universe of matter and energy shaped by chance argues against a "bad" and a "good" and only for a survival and adaptation environment where nothing is considered either bad or good; what survives survives.

My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.

I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public. It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.

My use of "evolutionism" and "creation" is not to be contrary, but merely to point out that there is bias also in the evolution community, even from the very foundation of the argument. Not from you, but from those who have termed it so.

Thanks,
H.

mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins.

Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools,

Claims that anyone teaches 'evolutionism' are false.

And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution

also false.


so is this...

For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds

Its been my observation that defense of creationism / attacks on the ToE requires falsehoods.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are creationists hell bent on regressing the USA into the stone age?

I think you'll find that jettisoning macroevolution won't send us back to the Stone Age.

After all, it didn't get us out of the Stone Age, and it won't send us back.

 

[Cabal]

I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public.

Yes, I would imagine if one questions radioactive dating to the tune of several billion years then all those isotopes must seem much more dangerous due to their higher activity.

Oh, and uranium isn't a lifeform, so "evolution of uranium" is a misnomer.

It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.

It could be, if you think is-ought fallacies constitute good reasoning.

I see why you're making a counter-point, but the issue here is that while belief in creation/creationism might not be a hindrance for some jobs, is it actually required? Do you need to be taught creation/creationism from high school level science and onwards to be a nuclear worker? It's not really an argument for it being on the course.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism

They both accurately and concisely convey the subject at hand: the former refers to a biological phenomenon called evolution, and more generally to the scientific theory of common descent. The latter, on the other hand, refers to a religious belief regarding a Creation event: God created the world, life, and/or humans.

That's why one is 'evolution', and the other is 'Creationism'. Besides, they both refer unambiguously to the desired concepts; why quibble over a suffix?

When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.

As well it should be: the theory of common descent underpins all of biology, is universally and unanimously accepted by the tens of thousands of scientists who utilise it every day, and is supported by mountains of evidence (literally: the mountains themselves constitute and contain evidence).

My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypotheses that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.

C-14 decays into C-12, with a half-life of 5,400 years. Since there is no detectable traces of C-14 in allegedly old diamonds (as opposed to newer, or artificial diamonds), and since this is exactly what we'd expect if said diamonds really were millions of years old... I don't really see the problem.

I did some research, and this myth seems to come from the ICR's RATE project, critiqued here, and independent research using C-14 in diamond found nothing unusual at all. Frankly, I'd be stunned if ICR didn't find abnormally high C-14 concentrations. Of course, independent analysis unearthed the truth - systematic bias and sample contamination.

I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.

Your logic is both invalid and unsound.

First, you start by talking about theistic evolution, and conclude that teaching evolution is the equivalent to teaching strong atheism; you make several disjointed, inconsistent, and outright false claims, namely that:

1. Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, and his influence is in affecting the otherwise chance interactions of matter and energy.
2. This belief is a religious belief.
3. If schools teach evolution, they are supporting this religious belief in God.
4. If schools teach evolution, they are supporting the religious belief that there is no God.
5. Evolution is a philosophy or hypothesis, but not a theory or fact.

There are many problems with this logic. I agree with (1) and (2), but (3) is a non sequitur: teaching evolution in no way supports the additional belief that a divine being had any influence.
Similarly, (4) is a non sequitur: teaching evolution in no way supports the belief that God absolutely didn't have a hand in evolution.
(3) and (4), with you simultaneously espouse, are contradictory: does teaching evolution support the belief that there is a God, or that there isn't?
Finally, (5) is simply wrong: the weight of evidence, explanatory power, and sheer lack of competater elevates common descent from the rank of 'hypothesis' to that of 'theory', and the biological phenomenon of evolution is itself a well established and readily observable fact. It is no more a philosophy than General Relativity is a philosophy (which it may indeed be, to no detriment to either theory).

Second, theistic evolution is a spectrum of beliefs, largely dependant on
how much control the individual ascribes to God: did he create the universe, and step back? Did he affect DNA now and then to engender the human species? Did he imbibe the otherwise mundane human species with a 'spirit' that sets them apart from their animal ancestors and cousins? It does theistic evolutionists an injustice to characterise their beliefs as internally inconsistent - rather, they're inconsistent with your beliefs.

 

[Delphiki]

Ex: evolution, creationism

Many of us have already tried saying "creation", but creationists tend to think we're referring to the alleged product of the creation process and not the story in the bible -- so blame it on them. Thus, we refer to the belief in the process and not the process itself, to (hopefully) make it less confusing to the anti-intellectuals or to avoid equivocation.


For example:
"We don't believe creation was how the universe came to be."
"What do you mean you don't believe in creation? You're standing in it!"

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I think you'll find that jettisoning macroevolution won't send us back to the Stone Age.

After all, it didn't get us out of the Stone Age, and it won't send us back.

Evolutionary principles (including macroevolution) are important in medical practice. The better we understand ourselves, our physiology, and the pathology of disease, the better our medicine will be. If we draw lines in the sand that science cannot cross, then we do ourselves a disservice. Doctors would be scratching their heads wondering why pencillin didn't work anymore if you had your way.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we draw lines in the sand that science cannot cross, then we do ourselves a disservice.

What does this have to to with the Stone Age?

And if we cross over lines we shouldn't cross over, what then? do people get blown up or something?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What does this have to to with the Stone Age?

And if we cross over lines we shouldn't cross over, what then? do people get blown up or something?

Who's to say what lines we should or shouldn't cross?

You? You're afraid of your own shadow.

 

[Split Rock]

Hi Hupomone10

First before answering the questions, do you realize that the wording you chose is slanted?
Ex: evolution, creationism

I am using the term that creationists themselves use. I don't see the problem in any case, since it is indeed, an "ism," or belief.

When I went through elementary and early years of high school, biology and science were taught without mingling evolutionism as a hypothesis or philosophy of origins. It wasn't needed to understand the body and how it works; neither was it needed to understand math or physics. Prior to evolutionism being taught in public schools, creation wasn't taught either. It was only after the insistence of the educational community that the philosophy of evolution be taught as science and as integral with biology that it became an issue and was pushed to be included.

It was a response to the Sputnik launch and the perception that the U.S. had fallen beyond the Soviet Union in math and science. In particular, you are correct that evolution was not frequently taught, despite the simple fact that it was and is the one fundamental theory uniting the science of biology. BTW: There is no "evolutionism" taught in public schools in the U.S.

My answer, leave out both; neither are needed for a study of science or biology. One could argue the need for it in a study of archaeology, but even then the objective stance of science would argue for both hypotheses to be presented. For instance, it could be mentioned that C-14 which decays in about 1 million years to non-traceable levels, is nevertheless found in diamonds which are formed under tremendous pressure and then sit for the remainder of their life. This could be mentioned as a fact that doesn't line up with the hypothesis that diamonds were formed millions of years ago.

Sorry but how can teaching the defining theory of modern biology not be necessary in a biology class? Oh, and you are wrong about carbon in diamonds, but that is not directly relevant to biology in any case.. that is geology.

I have many friends and acquaintances who believe in theistic evolution - that there is a God, but that all here happened by matter and energy shaped by chance and that God is somehow behind the "chance." This is a religious belief that is supported in the schools if the schools teach the philosophy/hypothesis of evolution. And since it is a philosophy, or hypothesis at best, teaching evolution supports the religious belief that there is no Creator. In short, IMHO, to teach either one is to support one faith system of the other.

No religious beliefs should be taught in public schools. The courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional. Evolution is a scientific theory (yes, a theory, not an hypothesis) and says nothing about God. Therefore, there is no reason that it violates the Constitution. The fact that theistic evolutionists have managed to reconsile their religious beliefs with science and you haven't isn't anyone's problem but your own.

I don't understand the point. Please define "bad" and what reference we have for determining something is bad as opposed to good. The philosophy of an ever-changing naturalistic universe of matter and energy shaped by chance argues against a "bad" and a "good" and only for a survival and adaptation environment where nothing is considered either bad or good; what survives survives.

I am using the term "bad" as a subjective assessment based on my own evaluation. That is why I empasized it as my opinion. You are free to disagree.

My oldest son is a product of home schooling and Creation teaching and is currently working as a medical assistant at a hospital after 4 yrs while awaiting further med school. It has had no bad effect on him that he or we have been able to discern. And no one in the emergency room has yet asked him where we came from.

That's as may be, but his religious beliefs will surely be in conflict with what he will learn in Med school. I guess as long as he does not allow his beliefs to interfer with learning his trade, it will not be a problem. Coming up with new ideas in medicine would likely be handicapped if he remained a creationist, however. This is a direction he may not decide to go.

I personally worked as a nuclear reactor operator for 20 years in nuclear reactor facilities, and never once did my belief in creation as opposed to the evolution of uranium ever affect my job or my ability to protect the health and safety of the general public. It could be argued, however, that the ethic that says lies and misrepresentations of the truth are ok because there are no moral absolutes may have had a detrimental effect in the plants in Japan.

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution? Why should a lack of moral absolutes be detrimental to following the cultural ethics of one's own society?

My use of "evolutionism" and "creation" is not to be contrary, but merely to point out that there is bias also in the evolution community, even from the very foundation of the argument. Not from you, but from those who have termed it so.

Thanks,
H.

Evolutionism is not a term I use, nor any one I know uses, other than some creationists like yourself.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What does this have to to with the Stone Age?

And if we cross over lines we shouldn't cross over, what then? do people get blown up or something?

What I'm saying is that we should follow the evidence wherever it goes. You'd have had the human race stop a long time ago once the 1611KJV came out. You have no appreciation for the work that has gone into science, medicine, and technology. You look retrospectively, pick and choose what benefits you, and then throw the rest away.

If it wasn't for evolution, all of our modern chemotherapies, antibiotics, and vaccines would have no conceptual basis for improvement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who's to say what lines we should or shouldn't cross?

Michael J. Smith
Dick Scobee
Ronald McNair
Ellison Onizuka
Christa McAuliffe
Gregory Jarvis
Judith Resnik

... are those enough?

 

[AV1611VET]

What I'm saying is that we should follow the evidence wherever it goes.

Even if it goes up in smoke?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Even if it goes up in smoke?

So you'd rather have untreated HIV over treated HIV? You'd rather have smallpox? You'd rather have no plumbing and no clean water? You'd rather have Type I diabetics die during adolescence? You'd rather have every inflamed appendix end in death?

Your problem isn't with evolution specifically. It's with the scientific method, which you have proven with your harping on Challenger, Pluto, and thalidomide. But in reality, you're standing on the shoulders of giants while defecating on their faces. The only reason you've lived as long as you have is because of science, and yet you still act like a whining child and fight back against it.