Subscribe to Listverse
Creationism is a hotly debated topic in the United States and, indeed, the world. There are many forms of creationism – the belief that God sparked the big bang leading to the eventual formation of the universe as we know it, to the belief that God literally created everything in 7 days. Opposing this view is that of Science which excludes a prime mover. Remember, be fair in the debate and no ad hominem attacks!
Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools?
My answer: I think that there is a sufficiently high percentage of people who believe in some form of special creation that the belief system could be explained to students. I don’t advocate it being taught as “truth” against the scientific theories of creation, but there is no reason that only one idea must be taught. So I think it certainly could be taught in social studies class, or religious education class (in religious schools), but definitely not in Science class. [Image above: Adam and Eve, by Enrico Baj - 1986]
September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Jamie!!!! What are you doing????
September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
NO
September 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Yeah. I agree. We should say FUCK YOU to 6 billion people and only go with the atheistic idea of evolution and darwin and such forth.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
astraya: it’s a hot topic!
logar: why? Is it any different to teaching children about the caste system of India in Social Studies class? I am not proposing it be taught as a fact, but as a module on belief systems.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The children of America need to be taught Creationism like they need a hole in their heads. If the religious types want to teach their children this garbage, let them do it at church, Sunday School, or in the home. Teachers have a hard enough time making the basics stick- why waste time with bullshit?
September 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
logar: okay – thanks for expanding on your first answer
September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Also, I don’t think all that many people in the US believe in creationism- just the fundamentalists. The problem is, they are a very vocal minority (perhaps majority in some areas in the south.)
Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments by saying I was raised Roman Catholic, educated in Catholic/Jesuit institutions. Once I hit high school (go Marauders!) they stopped feeding us creationism, and tried to incorporate God into scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang, etc., which is much better than trying to pass Genesis off as fact, IMHO.
Just because 90% of the world believes the world is flat, doesn’t mean the people who know better should teach what they know is false.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
logar: because we know the world is not flat, would it be wrong for schools to teach children that people used to believe it (and some still do in fact)? As I said above, I am not suggesting it be taught as a fact, but as an aspect of social studies.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Teaching creationism is like teaching that Santa really does exist & you must believe or you get no presents.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
NO! It’s a Religious theory that has no business in a public school.
OBAMA IN ‘08!!!
September 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
NO. Repeat, NO.
Belief systems. Where to stop? Do we end up trying to explain how a young moslem can ecstatically blow himself and a few dozen other people to smithereens because a mullah promised him he would have 60 virgins to lay for eternity in Paradise?
Such outlandish mindsets and their consequences are surely worth considering and trying to come to terms with, even within some specialised area of the educational system, but not as part of the standard curriculum, please.
Besides, those who subscribe to extremist views will regard any airing of them other than out and out criticism as a form of endorsement.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Think of it this way:
Creationism is explained in the Bible.
The Bible is nothing but a book of fables and tales chronicling the adventures of Jesus and Christians.
These fables and tales may or may not be true.
But probably aren’t.
But some people believe they are.
So:
Why should we be teaching our children something that comes from a source that isn’t credible and is only supported by a certain religion? Should we also teach our children in school that aliens exist, JFK was killed by the CIA, and Mountain Dew lowers your sperm count? Of course not.
Catholicism has spent most of history trying to spread their sphere of influence in anyway possible to maintain power, and this is the same strategy.
Prove it to me, and teach it all you want. If you can’t, keep it in the pews.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
@ Anon: I heard that it was a miss-translation (spelling?) that they would get 60 virgins, and that it only meant 60 pearls
@ Topic: I personally dont believe that the 7 days creationism should be taught in school because untill they have scientifically proven fact that those events happened. If not, it would be unjust to all the scientists who have spent many years of their lives to prove a point.
As for god starting the big bang I think that should just be taught in Religious Schools, Churches, Youth Groups and the like.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
In my school we were taught all the theories of human origins. In science classes we were taught Darwinism and in Social classes we learned about creationism. Not only in the Christian view, we learned about all the influent religions. I think that it is important for everyone to know. As a catholic, it gives me a wider view on other religions. But if you’re an atheist, at least you can learn what you’re against.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I think it should be taught in schools, not as fact, but as a belief held by some people. In fact, I don’t believe that any subjects should be avoided in schools, I don’t believe in there being bad knowledge, nor should schools discriminate as to what should and should not be taught. Having said that, there is a practical limit, but that aside I see no reason why it should not be taught.
Frodydude (No.14) If that is your test of what should and should not be taught, then you might consider the fact that there is nothing scientifically proven about how life began either. Some theories and ideas simply have more evidence to support them than others.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I don’t think it would be wrong to teach in schools since children should be given the option to choose what they would like to believe – whether it is fact or not.
Teaching them about things that other people believe doesn’t mean that it is fact.
Should we stop storytime since some books aren’t based on fact?
September 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I also think that separation of church and state is misinterpreted. We use it to mean that religion should never be mentioned in schools, workplaces, etc. However, this is clearly not what our forefathers meant, as many of them were religious men themselves. They only meant that religion had no place in the law.
I’m neither Christian, nor particularly religious myself, however, I have no object to learning Christian ideas of creation, as long as they are taught as such.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
@ Me: God is a theory. Gravity is a theory too. Jump off a roof and see which theory trumps which.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Guys – remember – I am not advocating that it be taught as FACT – I am saying we should teach it just as we teach the history of the flat earth theories, etc.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I was born into a christian family, and from what I saw around me, read and watched, I slowly started believing that there isnt a god, some how my family found out that Im an athiest, and now my dad hates me, my mom is okay with me, but my brothers ignore me, I dont believe I have done anything to deserve this, but the only thing that has changed was my point of view on religion. Personally I credit religion for giving hope in peoples times of need, but I dont like it because of the many problems it has caused, such as violence, ignorance, and lack of progress throughout history.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I think that if it is to be taught in schools, that it should be in a course akin to philosophy. Not only is there the fact that there are many different religions that have their own beliefs about creationism, but each person also has their own beliefs within their religion. Because of this, a course on creationism cannot be properly taught based on fact; rather, an elective course offered to college students and upperclassmen in high schools that compares and contrasts the leading ideas of creationism from a variety of religions with that of science much more appropriate than teaching creationism as an alternative to science. By that time in a student’s career, they would be mature enough to be able to make their own decisions about the big bang/creationism.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Mortal Light: nicely put!
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
NO!
There are religious schools to send your children to if you want them to learn creationism (God knows I’m aware of them, having survived 13 years of parochial school!).
If you want your child to learn creationism and can’t afford a religious school, send them to Sunday school.
Public schools, at least in the U.S., are state funded. Since the Founding Fathers, wisely, provided for a total separation of Church and State, teaching any form of religious belief system in a public school would be unconstitutional and, thus, against federal law.
Sure, there are always the fundamentalists who loudly proclaim that “Creation Science” (note the cute name they’ve given it to try to give it a more scientific sound), should be taught along side evolution.
Now, I grant that every country has it’s own set of laws, world views, religious views, social views and so on. I can’t speak for societies about which I know nothing. I can speak for the basic Judeo-Christian modern culture, the one I inhabit.
Public schools exist to teach language, reading, maths, sciences, literature, history, social studies. If you’re very lucky, you’ll get taught music and art.
These are the things most parents send their children to school to learn.
I chose to teach my children morals, morality. I didn’t think they needed a story about how things came into existence, only to have to tell them later, “whoops! That wasn’t quite right, guys, it really happened like this.”
I don’t think lying to your children is a good way to gain their trust.
I don’t think letting their school lie to them is a good way to keep their trust.
Creationism was a story for people in much less sophisticated times. They needed a simple way to understand the “beginning” of things, and the creation story provided that simplicity.
We don’t need that now. We have so many more pieces of the puzzle, we’re so much closer to the answer.
NO!
No fairystories. Give them the facts.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Where I teach, you need special classes to be certified to teach sex ed. If you want creationism taught in schools, who decides who is “qualified” or “certified” to do so? People need to take classes in their area to be certified for reading or math, etc. What does one take to be certified in Creationism? No. It should not be taught.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
No, not only because I don’t believe in it, but whose side of creationism will you teach? The Hindu? Pagan? Greek? Or just the Judeo-Christian side, which has a million different substories as well.
I think that science class (like all classes should) should be sensitive to religious people, but claiming a guy with a white beard waved a magic wand and said “voila” doesn’t cut it with the whole scientific method.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
@me: You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis. In science a theory has a much more stronger meaning than the meaning given to it in everyday life. In science very few things are consider laws, that the earth goes round the sun is also a theory, theories must, among other things, be falsifiable and testable, not false, untestable, and unquestionable like ID (aka ID).
@topic: I believe religion should be studied and be part of the curriculum of education because it is necessary to understand much of history, literature, and art just as other myths are necessary to study to understand the history, literature, and art of other cultures and times.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
meant creationism aka ID
September 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I think it’s very important that children learn of the origin of man as the whittlings of Odin and his brothers (or aspects) Vili and Ve. Or were you revering to the creation myths of the Sumerians? Or any of the numerous North or South American myths? What about African creation myths? What of the Hindi myths? And of course, Western civilization owes most of its culture to Greek and Roman antecedents, so lets include the myth of the gods of Olympus.
Now, I would not be adverse to a comparative religions class being taught as part of the anthropology curriculum, with all these myths and the Christian myth included, but the minute you contend that myths that are unverifiable and contradictory both internally and among themselves, are the equivalent of scientific inquiry into the origin of life, you have lost all pretenses at intellectual rigor.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I agree, Creationism isn’t something that makes any sense being in a science class. But how can you make any sense of history and current events if you don’t understand what drives people to do the things they do. I think Creationism is just the battleground of the larger war about the Bible, namely is it Divinely inspired or just an ancient compilation of short stories. Fundamentalists wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. The debate over Creationism is a very emotional topic in the western world. But it needs to be confronted.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I see no problem with teaching the idea of creationism in Social Studies class, but along with all the other schools of thought. I’m assuming as part of a study in religion.
Isn’t this already done? I’m pretty sure I learned all about different religions in school and their basic ideals.
Other than that, Creationism taught in a science class is a strict no.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I see no problem with teaching the theory of creationism, and yeah, I’m an atheist. I don’t take it as forcing kids to believe in it, it’s just explaining to them another perspective. I wouldn’t see any problem with it being taught alongside the theory of evolution.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
But it would make way more sense in a Social Studies class over a science class.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I don’t see why not. I think it’d be interesting to learn about other civilizations views on how things came to be. Like Incas or Egyptians. I’d like to learn about their creationism views. I don’t think it(the class) would only look at the Christian side of creationism. People are acting like it’d be teaching them to believe the bible, instead of what supposedly happen in the bible. Seriously, no big deal at all. Just make it an elective, or choice…
-Kase
September 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I agree pretty much with Jfrater, I understand that it should be taught as a THEORY. Think of it this way. How can you prove the Bible? it’s a book, a very popular one, so it makes sense to educate kids on it, but it’s ridiculous to tell them it’s right. Let them figure it out on their own. It is the responsibility of the educational system to provide opportunities for children. That means that they should be provided with more than one option to choose from (as giving them one option would be ridiculous)and then allowed to decide for themselves. Telling a kid he came from some almighty being who wished him to life and POOF! there he was is ludacris. Religion is not a vital part of every body’s life, so teaching it to everybody if they aren’t willing to accept it is also a bad idea. Religion and education should not mix. That being said, teaching creationism as a theory isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it gives kids a good imagination. All in all, the Bible is one big metaphor, most of it is made up to illustrate a point generated by men who were living in a terrible time period.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
It should be taught as science in schools…. in IRAN!
Separation of church and state means nothing in the US?
The problem (stated clearly) is the pressure to teach creationism in parallel with science classes that teach evolution. That’s the debate. The religious right wants science teachers to add a “proviso” that creationism is just a theory and creationism is an equal alternative and competing theory. That’s just plain wrong. Creation belongs no where else than in classes for religious studies. Any reference, no matter how oblique, in the context of science class is not just crossing the line, but completely obliterating the line. There is no more line. It’s a religious state. It’s the state of Iran.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
To quote the commenter “Me”-
“You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.”
People defending creationism say that evolution is just a theory, but they do not understand what a theory really is in scientific terms. Many people get the terms “theory” and “hypothesis” mixed up. A theory is as close to a fact as you can get in scientific terms. Gravity is also just a theory.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
No. Absolutely positively not.
Here’s why: Creationism is a scientific theory proposed by a mass of believers that REQUIRES the belief in God in order to be taken seriously. It cannot be taught as a science because you cannot actually test Creationism, thereby making it not a science by scientific standards. Creationism makes claims that evolution is a lie, that man lived with dinosaurs, that the Earth is not some billions of years old, etc. It makes claims based on no evidence whatsoever. Science makes claims based upon observation and evidence. Evolution didn’t become a theory because we magically said “oh, yeah, that happened”. It’s been changing and adapting with new knowledge of decades now.
As for any form of belief system being taught in public schools: no. Here’s why.
Not all of us are Christians, not all of us are Atheists. Unless you are willing to have taught, alongside Christianity, every other major religion in history, with the same seriousness as Christianity, you cannot teach one religion. Sorry. You can’t. If we’re going to include religion into school curriculums beyond historical things (like you know the Crusades or whatever, which are historical events that don’t require you to have a firm grounding in the religion itself to understand) you have to include all of them, at the same level. Just because we have a lot of Christians in this country doesn’t mean we’re all Christian or that we should allow ONLY Christian views to be put into our public schools. Not to mention its a violation of the separation of church and state.
Look, I don’t know what these people are bitching about. You have church. You have the option to go to church and take your kids there to learn about your religion. You can get a Bible. There’s no reason why you should require everyone to learn about your religion in a school setting. This is, at its most simplist, an attempt to convert the masses, to turn people who otherwise would not be Christians into Christians, which might sound find and dandy for some, but is a violation of a lot of things that should be left to parents. Schools cannot tell us what we can and cannot believe and allowing religion to become entrenched in state funded school systems is the same as endorsing that religion.
Leave it at home. Don’t bring it to school. School is for learning things they’ll need for college or the real world.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
SMD:
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It could be described as a “hypothesis” at best. In order for it to be a “theory”, it would need to be repeatedly tested and accepted as a scientific fact.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I went to a Catholic elementary school in Canada, and in Social Studies/Religion we were taught SEVERAL creations stories (Hinduism, etc -to be honest I don’t really remember), as well as parables and traditions from various cultures.
I don’t recall being taught that the 7-day genesis story was actual fact. I never REALLY believed in it the way I never REALLY believed in Santa Claus. I specifically recall having long conversations with my Grade 5 teacher about religious theory, ie – IF we’re not supposed to hate anyone… what about the devil? If the world was created in 7 days why are fossils that we learned about in science class millions of years older than humans? That teacher thought I was a genius, heh.
Honestly, I believed that being exposed to lots of ideas at a young age really opened my mind. Just because something isnt factual, it doesnt mean it doesnt have merit. Has anyone here read Dickens’ Hard Times? The book specifically warns against shit like this. If you’re going to axe topics like creationism just because it’s “unprovable,” then you might as well send every other liberal art to the guillotine.
I think creationism (Judeo-Christian-Islamic), IF FOR NO OTHER REASON than that it is a popular and influencial belief, should be classes like social studies, AND TO BE FAIR, Hindu, Buddhist, and other influencial world beliefs (perhaps according to region – IE native American) should be taught too. I agree that it should stay out of science class, but I doubt that was where it was planned to be taught anyways.
Creationism and other matters of belief are SOCIAL INFLUENCES, that you see in EVERYDAY LIFE, whether you believe in the myths or not.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
edit: … add a “proviso” that evolution is just a theory and creationism ….
September 14th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I agree. personally, I think creationisms is somewhat stupid. I do believe in evolution. And I think that evolution be taught in Science classrooms, since, it is science. But creationism should NOT be taught in science classrooms and ONLY discussed in social studies/history/humanities courses.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Well, if we teach Creationism (by that I mean the Judeo-Christian version) why should we stop there? In History class we can discuss how Moses parted the Red Sea to allow for the Exodus of the Jews. In Meterology, we can just attribute everything to a vengeful God (do your homework or God will strike thee down with lightning!). Ethics/Philosophy would be totally different…
I get that, at least in America, the majority of the people are some form of Christian. But it’s only fair to include everything/one if we’re going to include one. They now display menorahs and Kwanzaa candles alongside Christmas trees in public places. I think the best solution (it won’t work, though) is to hand out permission slips like with sex-ed.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
oops, anyways is not a word
EAL: things that are tested and proven infallible are no longer THEORIES.
SMD: Taught things that they need for college and the real world? I think what you are saying is a grave insult to the theology majors, sociology majors, humanities majors, and not to mention priests of the world. Yes, some people do this sort of thing in their daily lives and DO go to college/university for it.
I forgot to mention – when I got to high school my religion teacher was an irritating fundamentalist. After witnessing his mad ravings, did I become an atheist? No, actually, I stopped believing in the sticky dogma of the church and instead focused on the real values – Respect your mother and father. Love your enemies… Do unto others… you know, the REAL good stuff that while it doesnt make perfect sense, makes me happy.
Did everyone I grew up with walk away from the experience in the way that I did? No. I have friends from my youth who are atheist, agnostic, changed religions, worship the flying spaghetti monster, the works. And yet, people who didnt have the Catholic school experience have the same amount of diversity in their beliefs.
Believe it or not, children are not machines. When they learn something, they do have enough mental faculty to analyze it. Some might accept it, and some might reject it. I was taught that even teachers make mistakes. I hope every Even teachers make mistakes, and trust me, children know that.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Oh, and BOOBIES.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
i know my last sentence didnt make sense – just cut out the “I hope every” in the beginning
September 14th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I think so, I agree with you jfrater. As long as it’s taught as a theory i cant see why it shouldn’t be taught.. give children options and facts about all the arguments and let them make up their own minds rather then telling them what to believe.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Of course not. Creationism is religious dogma, not science. The only time the issue should even come up outside of a comparative religion course in high school, is during the holiday season. I remember learning about Passover, Ramadan and various other important holy days during the Christmas/New Year season. For the express purpose of teaching the predominantly white, christian students that our beliefs are not shared by the rest of the world. Differences were celebrated not berated. A big difference between that and offering creationism as science and as an alternative to biology/evolution.
I frankly am dumbfounded at the fact that this is even an issue in the 21st century. ‘Tis a pity, that.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
To add to the seeming concensus of the group.
No, creationism is religion, not science, and as such as no place in a science room. (Just as wicca paganism has no place in a horticulture course). It’s more than welcome in study of religion or even philosophy.
The problem with evolution is that it is heresy. Galileo had a theory about the earth revolving around the sun, but it was just a theory until the church officially backs down.
If the religion you choose, and choose for your children, does not allow a certain activity – then it is up to you to leave the science room.
Schools are a preparation for higher learning and future careers. Learning creationism in high school is going to be very limiting for any children intending to grow up to be biologists.
How are they going to get their doctorate when they don’t understand the basic principles of biological adaptation?
September 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
It is unlawful in this country to teach Creationism as a hypothesis of the origin of life in public schools. The Supreme Court decided this in the mid-80s, I think. ID is just more of the same, and a federal court in Pennsylvania has held as much. I doubt ID would make it to the Supreme Court, but it would almost certainly meet the same fate.
As for teaching it in Social Studies, as a kind of cultural awareness, I don’t see the point. Many students learn about it in Sunday School, many others know about it anyway, and it’s not going to make anyone happy.
Let sleeping dogs lie, and let religious theories be taught by religious authorities in religious schools–exclusively.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
jackit-
gravity is still a “theory”, but I bet you’d consider it infallible.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
# 50 ndat said “As for teaching it in Social Studies, as a kind of cultural awareness, I don’t see the point. Many students learn about it in Sunday School, many others know about it anyway, and it’s not going to make anyone happy”
Ndat how do you know this? Do you know what every student is aware of when they come to school?
What jfrater is suggesting is really the more open minded and liberal view of things.
He is just suggesting all beliefs be mentioned and not taught in science class or as a fact.
It just seems to me that some of the same people that call creationist narrow-minded are the same people that are not open-minded about any hint of creationism being mentioned in schools. What’s the big deal evrybody?
September 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Jfrater were on the same page. I just gave a speech last semester advocating the same idea, that it shouldn’t be taught as fact or against evolution or in a science class room, be taught along w/ other religions and beliefs as a World Religion class. People still hated me for that idea, when all i did was glorify it by putting it in its own class than a 4 minute speech alongside evolution.
Regardless, even doing that would be a sign of good faith.
I don’t go storming into churches demanding evolution be taught along side of creationism. If you want your child to be taught about that go to church. Last time i checked, you can sit there for an hour several times a week if you like and learn about it, not to mention sunday school.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Science has nothing to do with God. Since creationism (especially the literal interpretation of genesis brand) is not science in any way shape or form, It should not be part of science studies. If it’s going to be taught in school, it needs to be part of optional religious studies.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Absolutely yes. I think many people are missing jfrater’s argument. To teach it as fact is ludicrous, as is teaching it as an ‘alternative’ to evolution. However, to educate children about the extremely weak arguments creationists employ is to do them a great service. In no way should it be taught in a science class room, however to deny educating children about a subject that a sizable minority of people believe in stems their understanding about how weak the creationist argument is.
In regards to people who keep saying ‘evolution is a theory’; yes and no. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is. However, a theory is not a ‘guess’; it is a series of arguments intended to interpret facts! Evolution is the fact, natural selection is the theory. Gravity is the fact, the geometric bending of space-time is the theory. Get the point? In no way is evolution a ‘guess’; it is a process of mutation that occurs throughout life, explained and contextualized by the theory of natural selection.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I agree that the idea of creationism should be taught in a social studies class, but at upper levels. At early stages of grade school, children are impressionable enough to take anything taught as fact. I support evolutionary fact, but I wholeheartedly agree with the right for parents to have/not have their children learn certain controversial items. Evolution is a fact, and so it should always be taught, but parents should be given advance notice and be allowed the opportunity to excuse their student from class.
Creationism should be taught as a view point in a social studies class only at the high school level, as by that point students are mature enough to sort fact from opinion.
Do not get me wrong, I respect all religions, but I believe the root of many conflicts is the teaching of personal views to young children, I see it as a form of brainwashing.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Most of these comments I glanced over are unreadable to me because they are ignorant and pathetically misinformed. Some completely jumped to the falacy(sp) that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. This is not what the author intended the topic to be about; what he said was that creationism should be taught in schools as the belief system of groups of people. Just like we were taught that ancient Egyptians had a polytheistic religion.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Most of these comments I glanced over are unreadable to me because they are ignorant and pathetically misinformed. Some completely jumped to the falacy(sp) that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. This is not what the author intended the topic to be about; what he said was that creationism should be taught in schools as the belief system of groups of people. Just like we were taught that ancient Egyptians had a polytheistic religion. All of that being said, I agree in a general sense that creationism should be taught in public schools to give kids at least a perspective of the belief structure or their own parents’ beliefs.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Christianity: in the beginning there was an ultimate being that created everything.
Atheism: in the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
Take this how you like. To me the first seems more believable, but take it how you like.
I’m a christian, but i don’t think of it as a religion. I think it is a relationship with my creator.
Maybe it shouldn’t be taught in schools, to stop people forming opinions of each other’s religious beliefs, and if a teacher conveys the subject incorrectly, they could put across the wrong idea, and potentially cause offence.
My opinion is that the theory of Evolution should not be taught as fact.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Genesis 19. Read it, and you’ll see why the bible shouldn’t be taught as fact (atleast not the crazy parts).
September 14th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
yes we should…evolution is only a theory…while i know that creatures evolve…i also know that humans did not come from monkeys..we came from God who created us in His own image! i know that for a fact
September 14th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I think it should ABSOLUTELY be taught in schools. I don’t think creatioonism does any harm for a child to learn. Apparently, many people debating here grew up in certain religious backgrounds and still (according to themselves) are right by rejecting what they’ve learned in favor of what they truly believe. Therefore, that in itself suggests that teaching it doesn’t bind the children in any way, nor force them to accept into their belief system an idea or truth. It’s merely presented to them, they’ll take away from it what they want. There are also many on here that try to take the vantage point that because they don’t believe in creationism, teaching it would be lying to children and they wouldn’t be able to trust you etc.. To them I say, why do you allow your children to believe in Santa Clause for any reason at all. Allowing them (espeacilly when they are young) to believe such an imaginary thing as truth is already setting them up to reject or suspect your ideas, or facts. The purpose of a school is to educate, therefore, no topic should be off limits for children to be available to learn. Church (which is funded by those who attend it, not the government) is for those that believe a certain thing to gather together in the name of what they believe in. School is meant to educate, no matter what. If you’re hung up over scientific fact or whatever, and saying that’s why it shouldn’t be taught, then meet in a science lab funded privately by those that share your beliefs (as those who attend a church would) and revel in scientic theories only and bash creationism all you want. However, institutions funded by the public should by all means expose the children to multiple truths thoughts and ideas to educate. If you must get into specifics, perhaps science classes should teach ONLY about scientific laws and proven things instead of theories… sounds rediculous doesn’t it? If the purpose of teaching evolutionary theories and others not proven as fact (and I mean proven, not “accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community”…. that still means NOT PROVEN) is to educate the children of what the scientific community has gathered so far, Than other theories (like creationism.. which, like evolution isn’t scientifically proven) that has been gathered and believed by a majority of people (aka Christians, a majority of American society) should also be taught. If not anything else it’s educational in that it provides children with outlooks by those who trust only what comes in the name of science and those who are more numerous in society that actively question what is not proven fact by science.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Not in the school. In the church.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I’m not an American, so this discussion isn’t mine, but I want to point just one thing out – The US is almost the only country in the World that such an idea is even being considered. The only country in the Western World. To an outsider, it’s almost absurd to witness it.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:05 am
When I went to school we had a class once a week called “religion”. It taught the bases and mythologies of all major religion, and as extra credit you could dive into any number of the smaller ones.
In such a setting they should teach creationism together with all the other religious mythology.
What they should NOT do is teach it in science class, or any other forum where the kids might get the impression that this is a theory accepted as truth in general society.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:09 am
There are two things I NEED to point out to those who don’t like evolution:
1) Evolutionism is NOT atheism. After all MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ARE CHRISTIAN AND VICE VERCA
2) Evolution doesn’t say that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Rather that chimps and gorillas share a common ancestor. (The lessor known fact is that man is ape by definition)
September 15th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Jackit, (44),
“EAL: things that are tested and proven infallible are no longer THEORIES.”
Infallible is a religious, not a scientific concept. Everything in science remains perpetually open to challenge, to be proven wrong and changed, particularly in detail. Without that basis science would be in danger of stagnating.
As it happens in practice though, human nature understandably tends to rise to the surface in scientists themselves. After all, imagine your entire life and all your pretige and qualifications had been based on and bound up with assuming and teaching a flat earth. It’s pretty tough to accept some jumped-up, Johnny-come-lately heretic destroying that by insisting on a load of nonsense about the earth being round. That’s your life down the tube, mate.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Thing to point out:
Evolution is NOT atheism!
Most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionist are christians. In fact most scientists are theists.
Second, man did not evolve from monkeys or apes, they shared a common ancestor.
MAN IS APE BY DEFINITION definitely and definitively.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Yoav- if you don’t mind me asking, where are you from?
September 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Most christians are evolutionists and vice versa:
http://www.locolobo.org/majority.html
September 15th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Tink, before you say it is not accepted as fact, prehaps you should learn abit more before you go shooting your mouth off.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am
I certainly don’t believe it should be presented as an alternate idea on how the universe was created. I’m not so sure I think it belongs in a social studies class, either. It almost seems like we’re ridiculing the belief if we teach about it there, which does no one any good. It would sort of be like putting it in the same category as believing the Earth is flat. If the school offers classes on world religions, then you can teach religious points of view.
I don’t care what Ben Stein says. (By the way, Ben Stein did a great job of twisting up Michael Schermer’s words.)
September 15th, 2008 at 1:39 am
DoppHopper: I suspect that is because the Catholic Church (which contains the vast majority of Christians in the world) has never taught that evolution is wrong. Furthermore, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the idea of the big bang.
You may find this list interesting: Top 15 misconceptions about evolution.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
There are many different creation beliefs depending on the religion… if you put creationism in school there will be problems considering, if the students are very multicultural, every single religion will want to be taught and you’ll probably end up having more creationist classes than anything else.
I believe religion should stay out of the public domain, and remain a private thing.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I have to say, absolutely not, I was trying to read up (on other comments posted here) but it seems that everyone is already tied up in some argument. The single basic problem is that when we let this in at any level we will have a snowball affect. To say, a lot of people believe in creationism then lets teach it is like saying, a lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, so people were justified to teach it. The single goal of education is to teach things with evidence, things with history, things with generally accepted ideas of proof. Not opinion, these things can be taught at church, at Sunday school, Public school says “this is the situation with the most evidence”. Why when we say, no to teaching it public school do people feel like it’s an attack on their beliefs? If you want to take into account opinion take it in! but not in a forced public forum. We don’t convict someone of a crime by saying, “well he looks like hes guilty, thats enough for me” NO! it’s a process, it has checks and balances, it’s fair and even and there is one outcome. The next step will be that some pharmacies won’t carry birth control, or condoms. There is a lot at stake here that I don’t think people see, and it’s a serious problem.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Even Though there are a great number of people who don’t believe, i think it should still be taught at school.
When i went to school, we had the choice to either learn it or not, and if you didn’t want to, or your parents didn’t want you to, you were given alternative work.
i think this system was most effective and because it wasn’t being shoved down our throats there never was any complaint.
we also had a specific religious teacher, (usually a representative of a church) to come teach us.
i think it would be wrong to leave this out of school altogether, and should be an option to the student to learn it
September 15th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Tink
I am in shock at what you wrote, part of me deeply hopes that you are trolling. To simply reject science outright is what I can only consider to by legitimately damaging to society. please understand I am not trying to make an attack on you but if you throw out science, rational, and reason in school then what in the world are you teaching? You might as well teach that the moon is in fact made of cheese, hey science rejected it but you don’t know for sure, have you been? Classes on Alien life forms. How bout a Scientology class? hey we don’t even really need literature anymore since the validity of that is argued. Hey every 8 year old argues about the usefulness of math, why don’t we just get rid of that two, math isn’t an exact science, it has openly imaginary numbers in it! Can you see? can you see how you are very directly and very literally hurting education with this thought process?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:43 am
jfrater:
The creationist movement is an almost exclusively American thing inside of Christianity. Considering that most intellectual christians are anti-creationism, I don’t know why creationism has become so popular in the first place.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:44 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
September 15th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I’m a religious education teacher in Scotland. We teach creationism in the RE department – where it belongs. We describes it as a ‘RELIGIOUS’ view and differentiate it against scientific view points.
Creationism has no place in a science classroom. It’s wrong and it discriminates against other religious view points.
We should discuss religion in schools. However, it should be comparative, open to debate and in the appropropriate classroom!
FJ
September 15th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Yes, it should. It is important to look at both sides of such profound theorem.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Simple answer:
NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
If creationism is going to be taught in school then all other religion’s theories should be taught too.
You can’t push belief onto people
they can make their own desicions
This is why people hate Christians…
September 15th, 2008 at 3:51 am
You can tell children that some people believe in Creationism if you like, but you shouldn’t pretend it’s the same sort of thing as Evolution. Darwin’s Theory is based on logic and -proof- and Creationsim is based on blind faith.
Education is and should be about teaching children things base don logic and proof, and Church is about faith. The two should not overlap.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Yes, as part of a philosophy course.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Ash:
So creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools because it ‘pushes beliefs onto people’? What about all the christian kids that go to school and have the belief in atheism pushed on them? I don’t know about the whole world but the majority of Americans, at least, are Christians! Atheists are the minority so teaching creationism would be pushing beliefs on a lot less people then what is currently being taught. I think both sides should be taught in schools. However the scientific view of creation should be taught as a THEORY ONLY…because that’s what it is. Creationism should ALSO be taught as a theory albeit in an additional class that is optional. BOTH should weigh the pros and cons, though. Neither theory is scientifically proven or disproven, and both have evidence to support them over the other.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Both sides are kind of an extreme of a median view, though. Who’s to say that the 2 ‘theories’ don’t intermingle? The ‘big bang’ could have been God’s way of creating the universe. If you believe in God then you believe that he created everything including the smallest atoms sooo…
September 15th, 2008 at 4:48 am
This is ridiculous. There is already an argument about this ON A GAMING WEBSITE. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=926714&topic=45424536
I linked to two of this site’s lists. Guess which
September 15th, 2008 at 5:06 am
@ Courtney
PLEASE don’t label evolution as a ‘theory’ in a derogatory way. As explained before, evolution happened. There are not only masses of evidence in the fossil record that evolution happened, but cases of actual observed evolution happening during our life time (the moth case during the industrial revolution). Evolution is NOT only a theory. Evolution is the fact. The theory that explains how evolution occurred is natural selection, the ‘un-random’ selection of species based on their fitness due to random mutation.
Also, to clear up what a ‘theory’ is. It is NOT one step up from a guess. A theory does not exist in a hierarchy like;
1. lie
2. guess
3. theory
4. fact
A theory seeks to explain and interpret the worlds data i.e. scientific evidence. Please stop confusing theory and guess.
Thanks
September 15th, 2008 at 5:08 am
I say NO to creationism, and further suggest that diplomas held religious school nuts should not hold the same water as public/private schools UNLESS they meet all state curriculum requirements on atop what they try to brainwash their kids with.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:10 am
When I went to school we were taught the Roman, Greek and Egyptian myths about how the world was created, science had nothing to do with these teachings. It did me, and countless others, no harm whatsoever to be taught these beginnings but they were taught as myths and fables not fact. The difference with Creationism is that there are people alive who believe it to be true which is fair enough if they keep it within their own circles.
@ courtney 59 Christianity: in the beginning there was an ultimate being that created everything.
You find this more believable than the big bang theory where everything came from nothing, yet the God had to have been created first, he had to come from nothing unless he had a God that created him etc.etc.
And as Einstein said regarding theories “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right but just one experiment can prove me wrong” that is why in science theories remain as theories.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Thanks, Tom, for touching on Popper’s falsification theory. One of the aspects that defines a true science is the possibility it can be falsified. As with creationism/intelligent design, no possible way of falsifying it can be proposed. Just one aspect that relegates it to psuedo-science.
It is also true about the infinite regression that belief in a creator entails. Who made God, who made that God and the God before it, so on and so forth. I think that is more ludicrous than the Big Bang ‘theory’. Also, the current age of the universe than is accepted by the vast majority of science (13.7 billion years), has been mathematically calculated to the best of our ability, and more or less proven. Just another piece of evidence to support the big bang. And that’s not even mentioning the background microwave radiation left over from it.
Cheers
September 15th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Yes, why not?
start with this, then tell childs about the Flying Spaggety Monster, then about the Holow Earth, the Hartmann Lines, Feng Shui, psicomagic, astrology and go on…
All of this in natural science lessons, of course. Creationism doesn’t have any more scientist value than those pseudosciences, so ¿why don’t teach them also?
You’ll get one of this:
1: a herd of fool followers that will make whatever you want
2: Childs that won believe in anything told in school and hence a massive school failures.
@85. fishing4monkeys:
atheism is to a believe as bald is a hair color.
Nobody is telling your childs in what to believe but teaching how to use their brain. If you don’t want them to learn that don’t bring them to school.
@86. Yes, of course. But that’s a believe so must be learned in philosophy or religion lessons not in natural sciences.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:41 am
I know some people find “harmless” to tell child when learning evolution that some people believe in creationism.
But there’s a good one.
Mahmud Ahmadineyad and some authoritist govertments denies the holcaust. So by the same way in history lessons shall also be told that “some people believe that holocaust didn’t happen”. Is that also a harmless lesson?
Don’t be so fool to say I’m comparing creationism with holocaust.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Here’s an idea, from a European perspective: here in Romania, Religious Education classes are mandatory in school for 12 years. The students who are not Orthodox are not compelled to attend. I belong to a small Catholic minority and we were offered RE classes by our local church. I do not know what the case is for other religious groups, but they also have the opportunity to study their own faith if they want to.
For students who do not have this possibility (out of logistic reasons: lack of teachers or places of reunion) or for those who declare they are not interested in any form of religious education (they must bring a statement from their parents or legal guardians for this), schools offer other types of classes on civil education, the environment, etc.
I enjoyed RE at my Church very much because we had a very patient and understanding teacher and because we were free to discuss anything on the topic and ask all the questions we wanted. One of our lessons was precisely on Creationism/ Evolutionism/ Fixism. The Catholic Church does not support fixist theories (that the world was created in exactly 6 days, and animals and humans just popped up with no link between them). It is only logical to think that the Book of Genesis was written 5000 years ago and Moses (it is said that the Genesis was revealed to him) would have had no idea about the Big Bang. The Catholic Church does not reject any scientific theories with regard to the creation of the Universe. God could’ve made it any way He wanted.
Now, leaving my classes aside, I believe it is very important for students to be encouraged to explore their spirituality. However, they should be made aware of other religious view points and, when presented with a theory that is supported by the religious group they belong to, thei teacher should bring logical and rational arguments to support it. Also, it is crucial for schools to offer at least some basic knowledge of the history of religions and to point out how fanaticism and fundamentalism are a dangerous part of EVERY religion and what their consequences were.
I do not agree with school prayer. Your conversations with God are personal and should stay that way.
I do not agree with dictatorial approaches such as “because I said so” or “it’s in the Bible”. Everything in the Bible has a reason for being there, so explain why!
I do not agree with removing religious symbols from schools, as long as all religious faiths are respected.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:47 am
BTW, if you read the Genesis closely, you will see that the animals are created in the exact order of evolution Darwin suggested. And to begin with, Darwin did not come to contradict religion in any way and he was not an atheist.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:53 am
I think it’s funny how many of the posters think them self intelligent because the accept the theory of evolution over creationism, yet they don’t quite understand the concept that they are commenting about. What the author of this article is proposing is that creationism, like Greek mythology, should be taught as social studies. He is not saying that it should be taught as a science alongside evolution or that it should get preferential treatment over other religions; he is merely saying that it should be taught to offer perspective to children, just as Shakespeare is taught in schools now. I think the majority of the commenters above saw evolution and creationism in the same paragraph and flew off into a rant before actually reading the view that was presented to them.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:55 am
regardless of what’s right and what’s wrong, they both should be taught in school, but only in a fashion of letting the children pick which they’d like to learn
September 15th, 2008 at 5:56 am
As Matt says about the age and background radiation they help to strengthen the theory, theories make predictions about how things work, everytime a prediction is proved correct it reinforces the theory but never proves it. The LHC is hoping to find a Higgs Boson particle, these have never been seen but are predicted to have been present in the billionths of a second after the Big Bang, if they are found it confirms part of the theory but doesn’t prove it or disprove it.
With creationism the facts are changed to fit the theory. The dinosaur bones were artificially aged by God to test our faith etc. That way a theory can never be proved wrong so it should never be taught as a subject. Religion teaches faith so that is where it should stay.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Isn’t that how many people view creationism?
Particles-to-people evolution uses the big bang and millions of years as a starting point for interpreting the evidence found in the universe, within a scientific framework.
Creationism uses the Word of God as the starting point for interpreting the evidence found in the universe, within a scientific framework.
With this in mind, can either truly be taught as FACT?
Both seem to be matters of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
Could they not be taught for what they are, taking all evidence into account and giving both sides a chance to present their case rather than one being taught over the other. People are smart enough to come to their own conclusions
September 15th, 2008 at 6:01 am
@Mortal Light
the thing is that creationism is taught as science in certain parts of the USA (I believe) and evolution can’t be taught.
I’m sure I’ll be told if I’m wrong
September 15th, 2008 at 6:02 am
“With creationism the facts are changed to fit the theory. The dinosaur bones were artificially aged by God to test our faith etc. That way a theory can never be proved wrong so it should never be taught as a subject. Religion teaches faith so that is where it should stay.”
It could be said that many times evoltionary fact has been changed to fit a new hypothesis or new evidence. I don’t know of any serious, credible creationist who believers God artificially aged dinosaur bones.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am
@Tom
That is true, and it is also wrong. Like you said, creationism cannot be substantiated with scientific evidence, so it is completely wrong to teach it as science. Even if there is some scientific proof, only the leading theories, i.e. those that have the most evidence, are taught in the science the majority of lab-based science classes. Because the biggest piece of evidence supporting the Christian belief of creationism is a book that may or may not be a primary source, it cannot be taught as science. It should be taught as a philosophy course or alongside western history, as the Bible had a large influence on the culture and govenments in Europe.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Creationism is pure nonsense. Religion is not acceptable in school under any condition. I was in school, and no christian kid had atheism pushed on them. Furthermore, if christian parents truly believe that they are raising their children right, and that they follow the “one true god”, then they should not be worried about what their kids learn in life. Sheltering children is just a cop out. They call it good parenting to deny their child any viewpoint but their own. Teach your children EVERYTHING, then show them the right way. Don’t expect my children to believe your nonsense, and I won’t expect yours to believe mine. But your children should be educated. Evolution is a viable theory that is backed up by non-religious reasoning. I’m sure Christians would have a heart attack if someone proposed Zoroastrianism in school. Your religion is no better than the others, nor it is any more “right.” You can keep Jesus, but shut up to the rest of us. Quite frankly, if your God is real, and is actually like you say he is, I think I’ll skip it thanks.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Stizzy, Evolution tries to stick to the observed facts. Creationists change facts to reinforce their theories. one should be taught one shouldn’t until they accept observable facts
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am
@ Foxy:
“And to begin with, Darwin did not come to contradict religion in any way and he was not an atheist.”
Though he did become one.
———————————————————–
@ lott79:
“they both should be taught in school, but only in a fashion of letting the children pick which they’d like to learn”
Are you kidding? Kids wouldn’t know what to pick. Evolution isn’t even taught till highschool level, neither should religious studies wich would mean creationism. If it’s taught in the context of religion that’s fine but it should be strongly differentiated from evolution.
Also if creationism is to be taught, the dark side should also be taught, which is the attack on science by deception.
Check these vids out: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
There’s 13 in all, so set aside some time.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am
“Stizzy, Evolution tries to stick to the observed facts. Creationists change facts to reinforce their theories. one should be taught one shouldn’t until they accept observable facts”
Is it the facts being changed or the interpretation of the facts? Many times an interpretation of observable facts is changed to suit new evidence. Evolution is a growing theory right? Therefore it is liable to change some things when new evidence arises.
Can Creationists be criticised for doing the same?
Pilt Down Man was viewed as evidence that man evolved from an ape like ancestor and for 40 years it was believed as fact. New evidence showed it was a hoax, hence interpretations had to be changed.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am
It could be said that many times evoltionary fact has been changed to fit a new hypothesis or new evidence
a scientific theory will evolve as the evidence builds, a creationist theory will already have all the answers to begin with as they are in the Bible and can’t be changed
September 15th, 2008 at 6:10 am
“a scientific theory will evolve as the evidence builds, a creationist theory will already have all the answers to begin with as they are in the Bible and can’t be changed”
It will not have all the answers, it will have a starting assumption which is that the Word of God is true and evidence should be interpreted in light of that.
Just like modern evolutionary theory has the big bang, millions of years and chance processes as the starting assumption with all evidence interpreted in light of that.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:12 am
@ stizzy (104):
The pilt down man has been known to be a hoax for a long time.
But many more finds have proven to be genuine, in fact originally all the bones of pre-human species would only fit on a pool table, but now you need a whole pool.
And creationists don’t change their “facts” because the bible doesn’t change.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Also what I should’ve added is that what’s being interpreted is the scientific evidence. Whether its fossils, geological strata etc etc, these things that can be seen and tested are interpreted through the means i stated above. So to say that creationism can’t be substantiated by any scientific evidence doesn’t really fly.
If the bible is the starting point, there is archeological, historical and scientific evidence that can be used. It just depends on what assumptions you’re bringing to the evidence.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am
@ MortalLight
At the beginning of my first post I actually commented that a lot of people missed the point of jfrater’s argument, then went on to discuss why creationism should be taught in school based solely on the controversy surrounding the ‘theory’. When discussing creationism, however, the need to discuss evolution and how it differs in both philosophy and scientific rigour is imperative. Why so? Simply because creationists are trying to elevate creationism to the level of evolution with the express goal of having it taught alongside evolution as an equal theory. Hence, it becomes necessary to state the argument for evolution as to why it is a genuine science, and why creationism is NOT.
@ Stizzy
I disagree with your statement that evolution has been changed to fit a new hypothesis. I agree that theories about natural selection/inherited traits/gene development have been changed, and rightly so, in order to accommodate new discoveries or new ways of finding out how evolution occurs. However, the fundamental evolutionary fact of random mutation directly influencing ‘un-random’ natural selection has always remained the same.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am
“The pilt down man has been known to be a hoax for a long time.
But many more finds have proven to be genuine, in fact originally all the bones of pre-human species would only fit on a pool table, but now you need a whole pool.”
What fossils have been proven to be genuine? And like I said, for 40 years scientists believed pilt down man wasn’t a hoax.
The fossils found are either fully ape or fully human, no transitionals have been found. And even when a fossil has been found of an ape like creature that appears to be bipedal, it is only for short distances and they have curled fingers for swinging through trees (i.e Lucy)
September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am
If the bible is the starting point, there is archeological, historical and scientific evidence that can be used. It just depends on what assumptions you’re bringing to the evidence.
what about the Koran and all the other religious books they don’t agree with the biblical account of creation yet scientists the world over favour evolution.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Trouble is that any new thinking on any theory in science goes through the “Peer Review” process which is absolutely brutal and eventualy the scientific community accepts it or drops it on the scientific method standard.
Creationism goes through no peer review.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am
“And creationists don’t change their “facts” because the bible doesn’t change.”
Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am
“Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.”
it is the best model that fits the facts, when it is proved wrong it will be accepted as being wrong. The facts won’t be changed to keep it going
September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am
@ stizzy:
“Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.”
Yea, because new discoveries don’t point contrast or challenge those theories.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
“what about the Koran and all the other religious books they don’t agree with the biblical account of creation yet scientists the world over favour evolution.”
Many scientists do favour creationism.
The Quran agrees with the biblical account on many cases, but the Quranic account of creation is vary vague and in some cases it doesn’t agree.
As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.
“Creationism goes through no peer review.”
How do you know creationism goes through no peer review? And if a creationist tried to put his thesis through the normal scientific peer review, they would dismiss it not on the grounds of its scientific evidence but simply because its creationist. There is a strict bias here. I’m aware of creationist bodies that do indeed put their work through a peer review process.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Since aspects of evolution have been demonstrably proven both in the lab and in the field, those aspects of evolution are as solid as the theory of gravity.
Note that gravity is still a theory, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, nor should one deny the profound signs (finds/evidence) of evolution.
Creationism is based on blind faith, is unscientific and should not be taught in school as anything but religious studies.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am
“Yea, because new discoveries don’t point contrast or challenge those theories.”
Many discoveries do contrast and challenge these theories but they are either swept under the rug, the experiments themselves are criticised as being “flawed” or the new evidence is reinterpreted in a way that fits the evolutionary model.
For example, the RATE group did radiometric dating studies on rocks produced from the mt saint helens eruption, knowing how old the rocks should be (as radiometric dating “clocks” begin once the rock has cooled) yet the results gave figures of millions of years for rocks that were only a few decades old. And these results were presented alongside tests done on other rocks that were already meant to be millions of years.
Also theres the soft tissue reportedly found in a t-rex bone. Evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain this so will instead challenge that the tissue is what it appears to be.
“it is the best model that fits the facts, when it is proved wrong it will be accepted as being wrong. The facts won’t be changed to keep it going”
Is it truly the BEST model that fits the facts? Or is that an assumption that many people make without actually checking for themselves whether it appears to be the best model.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
“As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.” Hallelujah
September 15th, 2008 at 6:30 am
“For example, the RATE group did radiometric dating studies on rocks produced from the mt saint helens eruption, knowing how old the rocks should be (as radiometric dating “clocks” begin once the rock has cooled) yet the results gave figures of millions of years for rocks that were only a few decades old. ”
Can you give any sources for rocks that are a few decades old
September 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Another issue is the Copernican Principle, that no where in space is any more different or special than another. Space is defined like the surface of an inflating balloon with the galaxys on the surface. You can never truly find the centre. This can’t be proved but it’s assumed to be fact because no one wants to believe that the Earth and our solar system is in any way special but who can really challenge that it is?
“Since aspects of evolution have been demonstrably proven both in the lab and in the field, those aspects of evolution are as solid as the theory of gravity.
Note that gravity is still a theory, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, nor should one deny the profound signs (finds/evidence) of evolution.
Creationism is based on blind faith, is unscientific and should not be taught in school as anything but religious studies.”
What aspects of evolution have been proven in a lab? If you’re talking about macro-evolution, it is a process that takes millions of years and therefore can’t be observed in a lab.
Micro-evolution or natural selection can be observed, but natural selection doesn’t prove particles-to-person evolution. That is about adaptation and Creationists don’t deny adaptation.
Many evolutionary hypothesese are too based on blind faith, because its based on things that can’t actually be observed. Wouldn’t that too be blind faith?
September 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I found the article and will read it now http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
September 15th, 2008 at 6:35 am
JB:
What? So what would you call it? Take this sentence for example:
“I believe there is no God”
What word would you substitute for ‘believe’? Seems like it fits to me…
You say that if you don’t want your child to learn something then don’t take them to school…what!? So Math, Science, Language, etc. should just be thrown out the window because one theory is accepted over another? Great logic there.
BOTH are theories because they BOTH have evidence to support them. However the Bible isn’t considered a good source in the scientific community because it is often misinterpreted. Keep in mind that it was written before anyone knew what atoms or molecules were so not everything can be taken literally.
As for evolution well…how is it any more reliable from a scientific standpoint? Archeologists have found metal tools fit for use by modern human hands and obviously made by an intelligent mind (ie. not an ape) that are found to be dated to time when intelligent humans didn’t exist yet…
September 15th, 2008 at 6:39 am
“What aspects of evolution have been proven in a lab? If you’re talking about macro-evolution, it is a process that takes millions of years and therefore can’t be observed in a lab.”
I’m going to have to find the examples in that book, i’ll have to get back to you.
“Many evolutionary hypothesese are too based on blind faith, because its based on things that can’t actually be observed. Wouldn’t that too be blind faith?”
You can’t call it blind faith, you can’t call it faith at all, science doesn’t permit faith. The fossil record and genetics are substantial evidence for many evolutionary hypotheses.
Remembering that absolute truth is unattainable by humans, science is a self correcting process. As more evidence is found the theories change to fit. The refinement of theories are about becoming ever accurate.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:44 am
“You can’t call it blind faith, you can’t call it faith at all, science doesn’t permit faith. The fossil record and genetics are substantial evidence for many evolutionary hypotheses.
Remembering that absolute truth is unattainable by humans, science is a self correcting process. As more evidence is found the theories change to fit. The refinement of theories are about becoming ever accurate”
The Big Bang and macro evolution are things that can’t be observed, and many scientific hypothesese are formed around the idea that those things have occured, and they believe this through faith. Because faith is based on what you can’t see with your own eyes. Like I can honestly say that many people accept what they are taught, whether religious or scientific, based on faith and not on their own research. We put our faith in scientists who are meant to know better because other scientists say so.
The fossil record shows that many creatures were buried by strata and water, preserved in the rock. Whether this is evolution or creationism depends on how you interpret the evidence. You don’t find transitional creatures in the fossil record and therefore where is the substantial evidence?
Not to mention fossil formation doesn’t have to take millions of years anyway.
And you have to question any concept of “truth” in an evolutionary world. How can you define truth?
September 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am
All religions are the conglomeration of theories that have developed beyond their moralistic content to the point that cognitive dissonance has deprived the majority of the world’s poulation of their ability to tell mythology from history. All mythologies were religions at one point; what makes the ones in vogue today any different?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:06 am
“All religions are the conglomeration of theories that have developed beyond their moralistic content to the point that cognitive dissonance has deprived the majority of the world’s poulation of their ability to tell mythology from history. All mythologies were religions at one point; what makes the ones in vogue today any different?”
Pretty bold statement to make isn’t it? That ALL religions are the conglomeration of theories? And is it really fair to say that people who are religious can’t tell the difference between myth and history?
I can’t speak for other people but its not blind faith that holds me to my beliefs, and its not a case of not being able to tell the difference. For me, the evidence stands but no evidence can prove the existance of a God, because if there were an omnipotent God, any evidence that “proved” his existence would be to say that the evidence has more power than that God. Therefore a measure of faith is required.
Were all mythologies truly religious at one point? And even if they were, that doesn’t prove that all religions were once myths. Take for example todays comic books, in several 1000 years, people could look back at these and believe that they were based on religions even though we know they weren’t.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:08 am
This is an extremely volatile issue. And one which is strewn with misconceptions, and bags of heat with very little light. I am a Lutheran. I was taught that there are two kingdoms. The kingdom of Heaven, and the kingdom of the world. The Bible teaches about the Kingdom of God, while science teaches about the kingdom of the world. The two kingdoms do meet, but we have insufficient knowledge on both sides to tell exactly where that happens. The Bible is not a science text, and science is not a religious text. I have no trouble merging both, so long as they maintain honesty when they overreach outside of their base. When religious folks try to impress their beliefs on the scientific community, they are as wrong as the scientists who claim there is no God because science proves it. I say a pox on both of their houses when they try to exclude the other.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Well said dlcuervo,
I believe to oust evolution in favor of creationism or vice versa would be wrong.
Shared dialogue is the best way forward. Both should be allowed to equally present their viewpoints.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:28 am
NO, Creationism should NOT be taught in schools.
Let’s all be honest about this and cut the bullshit. Extremist Christians KNOW they are peddling nothing but a falsehood in this… it is quite simply a backdoor way of getting THEIR belief system back into the mainstream, in order to overthrow science. And why? Because in their fundamentalist moronic heads, they cannot STAND the idea that the words of the Bible could be wrong, and thus their idiotic LITERAL interpretation of it could be wrong. Unable to loose themselves from this literalism, they see science as a challenge to their notion of reality, and so they will do ANYTHING to undermine it and dispose of it. It isn’t about gaining “fairness” or having “equal time.” All that malarkey (invalid anyway) is simply cover so they can gain the victory they feel they need, and start us on the rollback away from rationalism and logical reasoning.
We should never take this lightly. They have poured a lot of energy and money into pushing this agenda, and into framing REAL science itself as a “biased system.” It’s just like the game Cryptozoologists play with *their* belief system, painting skeptics as so-called “scoftics” — i.e., turning the argument around to make the skeptic look like the irrational, unreasonable one with an axe to grind and an agenda to promote. The very same tactic is used by Creationists, only in their case it’s more serious. It’s no great challenge to civilization if a few devotees who believe strongly in Bigfoot want to go around trying to undermine the scientific credentials of skepticism in regards to their cherished belief. The argument is really small potatoes, and will never have a huge impact on the culture overall. But Creationism is a far more broad, sweeping issue. It is simply the resurgence of Christian mysticism and dogma that not only challenged science, but repressed and stifled it for centuries.
It’s easy for us to sit here with our technology and modern cities and whatnot and think we can’t possibly be teetering on some brink of barbarism, but in fact we damn well could be. The mistake is in thinking that “barbarism” means people living in wigwams and tents, filthy and degraded, going around killing and plundering. That may be what we think of as the ultimate picture of barbarism, but it’s simply the end-result. The real and pressing danger to civilization is when it starts to collapse over into rigidity, ignorance, enervation, and general lack of confidence in itself.
Our civilization is based on this innate confidence in the grouping of factors that makes us “western” in the broad historical and cultural sense. Individuality, freedom, belief in certain rights, an innate faith in the rational and the knowable, and a confidence in the capabilities of science, as a tool, to illustrate and unmask the universe for us. Extremist Christian dogma goes against almost ALL of these, but it particularly assails rationality and reason, and the fundamental basis of science. And the reason, of course, is because extremist Christianity cannot co-exist with science. Ordinary Christianity can, because the two are divorced from one another. But when one’s base sense of reality is grounded ENTIRELY in a mystical, untouchable, and non-empirical view, then what the rest of us call scientific fact becomes an enemy factor to that view, totally in opposition to it. How can a view that holds as fact that the world is only 6000 years old be in ANY WAY squared with the *scientific* fact that the world is actually 4.5 billion years old?
Creationism isn’t simply somebody else’s “equally valid” worldview that “should be respected.” It is, in fact, in total opposition to the base tenets of what makes us civilized. It is dogma over rationality.
These things happen slowly… so we don’t necessarily see it. And with our ever-increasing and sophisticated technology, we have this strange faith, it seems, that things CAN’T POSSIBLY roll back. Put these two factors together and we’re *blind* to the danger. But in fact the danger is right here and it’s real. It’s foolish to take small steps down the path to barbarism and ignorance just because we think it can’t do any harm. The harm happens in aggregate and sometimes is slow to manifest itself. But historically we’ve seen it before.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:30 am
“You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.”
I’m a retard here.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Bit of an aggressive reponse Randall. Seems a bit more hate filled than rational. Why is that? And to be fair, many of your objections against Creationism having a say could be easily lobied against evolutionary theory.
“Creationism isn’t simply somebody else’s “equally valid” worldview that “should be respected.” It is, in fact, in total opposition to the base tenets of what makes us civilized. It is dogma over rationality.”
And what are the base tenets that make us civilized? I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations. The desire to learn is ingrained in our very being as part of our nature.
Where is there a basis for morals in an evolutionary world? In a world like that, everything becomes subjective and a matter of perspective. There are no absolutes and anything will go. That doesn’t seem to encourage civilization but chaos.
Can chaos, if left alone for a long enough period, eventually turn to order? Without a guide, how can chaos know when it becomes order? And where would the intelligence from this guide come from? Surely not from more chaos.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:36 am
“How can a view that holds as fact that the world is only 6000 years old be in ANY WAY squared with the *scientific* fact that the world is actually 4.5 billion years old? ”
The 4.5 billion year old age is based on radiometric dating, which in and of itself is a flawed method. It’s based on uniformitarionism, the belief that the rate of processes that would have “aged” the rock have always been the same and constant. This is as assumption because the simple fact is scientists don’t know. So how can it be FACT?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:38 am
“Did anyone order the retard? We got a whole plateful of retard here, but I don’t think any of us ordered it.”
What exactly is the basis for calling this person a retard? And what is the plateful of retard you’re talking about?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:39 am
The BBC have an article on this today as well as well as a discussion http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm
not trying to pull people away jamie but i think it will expand the comments and get some different viewpoints.
feel free to remove
September 15th, 2008 at 7:41 am
By Coincidence the BBC are having a discussion about this today as well and have an article from a British point of view http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm
September 15th, 2008 at 7:43 am
“That was my knee-jerk reaction to the ignorance that person demonstrated by using the “just a theory” argument. I don’t like to use the word ‘retard’, but that person clearly knew very little about the subject.”
True, that it isn’t sufficient to use the “just a theory” arguement. Because the scientific meaning for “theory” isn’t necessarily what most people think of.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am
big magic man did it!!
September 15th, 2008 at 7:50 am
“I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations.”
If that is true then there is no basis for the science of Psychology, is there? Morals and ethics are built from personal experience and empathy, not from the historical beliefs of our ancestors.
“The desire to learn is ingrained in our very being as part of our nature.”
That desire should not mean learning for learning’s sake in a civilised world. It should mean learning for the sake of truth.
“Where is there a basis for morals in an evolutionary world? In a world like that, everything becomes subjective and a matter of perspective. There are no absolutes and anything will go. That doesn’t seem to encourage civilization but chaos.”
Do you honestly believe that Atheism results in anarchy?
September 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I will use my amazing skills of perdiction to perdict that this will get rough.
My view: No, not as science! I live in Norway and here we learn about the major five religions (and others) so we now about creation. Most Norwegian people don’t believe in creation so I think we’ve got a pretty good system
September 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
whoo hoo hoo HOO MAN!!!!! JF you are insane but thank you for providing the interesting reading!!!
I dont necessarily believe that it should be taught but I also dont think that the the big bang THEORY or the THEORY of evolution should be taught either. But something has to fill the gap. i mean, we cant just say i dont know instead of possibly lieing to millions of students every year (sarcasm)
I went to a school where my science teacher was a die hard evolutionist supporter and believer. Good for him, he is a good guy. We just didnt agree on that particular subject. I refused to do the work or did it and made sure to sufficiently imply that it was a theory and not fact. And that is fine. Its as soon as you start teaching theory as fact is where shit hits the fan and i think thats the huge problem. Not with teaching creationism, but withthe current methods for teaching the THEORY of evolution and the big bang THEORY.
I better answer is to not make it a mandatory part of studies but rather have both THEORYS be taught in a seperate elective course. Then all the people who want to learn about the other or express there personal beliefs can do so in a seperate forum instead of mixing church and state by forcing the religion of evolutionism (illegal) on people and by causing (for lack of a better term i will herein refer to all religious creationist theorys as creationism) creationism to receive so much more attention by so pointedly ignoring it. I want to know how the touchy subject is being taught in other countries, where i am from, in America, Oregon, USA to be exact, we were taught the evolution and the big bang theory were only theorys but the only theorys that fit, therefore fact. But like i said, my teacher was a nut. LOL
Be a little more openminded you f***ks before you start being rude and calling people retards. Ignorance is bliss…
September 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am
“If that is true then there is no basis for the science of Psychology, is there? Morals and ethics are built from personal experience and empathy, not from the historical beliefs of our ancestors.”
Or are morals and ethics built into our very nature as a result of being designed to be that way? Ingrained with a conscience that can tell the difference between right and wrong. I’m not saying that it is based on historical beliefs of our ancestors.
“That desire should not mean learning for learning’s sake in a civilised world. It should mean learning for the sake of truth.”
Obviously, you learn in a persuit of truth, but ALSO out of a sense of wonder.
“Do you honestly believe that Atheism results in anarchy?”
I wasn’t saying Atheism results in anarchy. If you believe that morals and ethics are both ingrained in our very nature and guided by the word of an all powerful, all knowing creator, then we have the capacity to know whats right and wrong. The question is “why?” evolution can’t answer that question.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
and as for the whole world being preoved to be billions of years old….God (any religios figurehead) created a muture world. LOL
there is always an argument, always a reason why one is better than the other….
I like my idea, dont teach either, rather, have them both as an elective. It isnt a neccessary subject, vital to our success as humans or in life. Its just a curiosity. And all totally theoretical. There is no way to prove either is right or wrong unless God(any religios figurehead) himself shows up or we all start growing tails and a new hospitable planet appears. Both unlikely.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am
we know what’s right or wrong because we get taught it at an early age. some heed the lesson others do not, certain priests for example
September 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Stizzy:
“Bit of an aggressive reponse Randall.”
Concerted, well-schemed and threatening challenges to rationality and our civilization as an extension demand an aggressive response “Stizzy.” You don’t like it, too bad for you.
“Seems a bit more hate filled than rational.”
I see little “hate” in what I wrote. What I have, however, is no patience for ignorance and those who want to replace the rationalistic way of viewing the universe with out and out dogma.
“Why is that? And to be fair, many of your objections against Creationism having a say could be easily lobied against evolutionary theory.”
In what way? In what possible way is evolution anti-rationalistic?
“And what are the base tenets that make us civilized?”
I outlined those, clear and simple, for all to see. Do I need to repeat myself?
I QUOTE:
“Our civilization is based on this innate confidence in the grouping of factors that makes us “western” in the broad historical and cultural sense. Individuality, freedom, belief in certain rights, an innate faith in the rational and the knowable, and a confidence in the capabilities of science, as a tool, to illustrate and unmask the universe for us.”
“I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations.”
And where does this contradict what I said? You can, if you like, place morality and ethics in connection to what is rational. But be careful to DEFINE what you mean by “morality,” because it’s a word that has a tendency to get us into trouble, since so many of us (presumably types like YOU) prefer to define it by their own rigid lines which are NOT, in fact, in keeping with what is “civilized” in a broad, historical context.
“The desire to learn is ingrained in our very being as part of our nature.”
AND SO IS the tendency in ourselves towards fear, alienation, and the desire to stay back from what challenges us. Learning requires an active heroism, in the willingness to face the abyss, to face the unknowable.
Your argument isn’t getting anywhere Stizzy.
“Where is there a basis for morals in an evolutionary world?”
I see nothing in the two that makes them mutually exclusive. Apparently you do. Again, it sounds to me like you are taking the very tack I was speaking against–extremist Christianity always feels it can’t co-exist with science. When in fact science does NOT address the existence of god nor any system of morality we derive from our religious beliefs. BUT, a belief system that grounds itself MAINLY or STRICTLY in dogmatic mysticism DOES end up having to deny science, for the very reasons I spoke of earlier. THAT is irrational.
“In a world like that, everything becomes subjective and a matter of perspective. There are no absolutes and anything will go. That doesn’t seem to encourage civilization but chaos.”
Bullshit. NO SCIENTIFIC FACT has ever led to the degradation of a civilization, unless that civlization had first degraded and debased ITSELF by allowing mysticism and dogma to command and dominate it. AGAIN, ethical rationality has nothing whatsoever to DO with science. Evolution ONLY illustrates the biological facts of how life progresses and adapts. What has this to DO with the tenets of morality and ethics? God is still god, the spirit is still the spirit.
ONLY THOSE who ground their belief system in the DOGMA that we MUST have been created pristine into our human form are challenged by evolution. LOSE that ridiculous and childish notion, and you will see that there is ABSOLUTELY no contradiction and no problem.
“The 4.5 billion year old age is based on radiometric dating, which in and of itself is a flawed method.”
This is simply more creationist lying. I’m fed up with it. There is NO WAY FOR A FLAW TO EXIST which could blunder a date SO INCOMPREHENSIBLY large. The world is 4.5 billion years old, NOT 6000 years. This is not a “degree” of difference, but a DOGMATIC difference.
You are simply illustrating my point for me, that extremist Christians will lie and invent lies in order to further their agenda.
Why not stop with the BS, Stizzy? Why not just come out and SAY the truth? That you can’t abide the idea of science being right on these questions, and you want to END it as a system and instead replace it with your own beliefs?
Because of course it’s no way to get your way through the door. You know that doors that are shut, if they can’t be broken down or coaxed open, must be chipped away at so you can remove the hinges and pull it down yourself—surreptiously so the owners don’t know what you’re doing.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Ouch, I just read some comments. People are not going to be civil
September 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Yes, creationism s/be taught. I’m sick of these “evolutionists” and their fascism. Just like I’m sick of the “round earthers.” A flat earth theory s/also be taught and let the students make up their own minds. While we’re at it, who started all this nonsense about parents putting presents under the X-Mas tree? We need to teach the reality of the real Santa Claus. We also need to dispense with all the “sexual reproduction” theories. THE STORK BRINGS THE BABY, DEAL WITH IT YOU… “SCIENTISTS!”
September 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
“we know what’s right or wrong because we get taught it at an early age. some heed the lesson others do not, certain priests for example”
And my point is our parents had to learn from somewhere
September 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Yes, of course.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Before anyone here gets fooled by the nonsense peddled by people like Stizzy, and has to engage in arguments with him/her, I strongly suggest everyone go here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
Let’s all keep our heads and remember that creationists will say anything to sneak in their little (or large) distortions of the scientific facts. Which is simply more proof that Creationism is a dogma, not a science.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Sure, it should be taught. The idea of intelligent design has been greatly influential on past generations, especially in music and art. Whether Creationism is a science or not, it can’t help us by arguing over it forever. Toleration is key. Contraversy will exist forever until we, as a human race, learn that each and every person is truly different. We all believe what we believe. Whether you are correct or not doesn’t matter much if you’re damaging the well-being of this planet in any way. Creationism is a part of our history (much like “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance), and should therefore be taught as a possibibility. As long as there are still Christians believing it, teach it. All you can do as evolutionists is try to explain your beliefs. Done.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
A rebuttal to most Creationist claims.
In answer to the question, yes Creationism should be taught in a religion class, but not in a science class.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
44. jackit, read my #24. segue.
After 13 years of Catholic school, K-12, I can pretty much recite the catechisms and can recite the various creeds by heart. But when it comes to teaching creationism, any religion’s creation story, in public schools, I have to disagree strongly for a number of reasons.
In the U.S. it’s a Constitutional issue, it can’t legally be done. So, let’s pretend the separation of Church and State is a non-issue for a moment, which religion’s creation story will the schools be teaching?
To make it fair, they’ll have to teach the creation stories of the religions of all of the students in the entire district. Imagine the confusion that will create! Not to mention the amount of time better used on other subjects; maths, sciences, English, literature…
Teaching a child creationism (any religion’s creationism) doesn’t improve the child.
Teaching the child morals improves *does* improve the child.
Teaching the child morality is the job of the parents.
I had three children in thirty-three months. I began teaching them, morals, ABC’s, counting, etc. almost immediately in a very natural way.
All three lessons took equally well. My children were all reading fluently before they were four, and knew right from wrong with the same ease.
That’s what’s important. Not how we came to be, but how we conduct ourselves while we’re here.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
What were they teaching in school 100 years ago….or even 50 years ago? What will they be teach 50-100 years from now(not just about our origins but about anything)? I like the idea of how much we simply don’t know. Things are changing so fast and we are discovering more and more everyday. I do believe evidence that really doesn’t fit evolution is covered up. There would be A LOT of people who would face severe embarrassment if something that brought evolution under intense scrutiny was brought to the worlds attention; so the motivation to keep that theory relevant, no matter what, is very real. I don’t really like the bias on either side. I would like to think that any scientist who makes a discovery would think “what dose this discovery point to” and not ” how does this fit into the evolutionary theory/creationist theory”. Don’t go ape-shit on me I’m saying that there is evidence of creationism being covered up and stored in a bunker somewhere but I have doubts about the integrity of the average human being. I love science and in my mind it is in a state that makes me question evolution as it is presented today as well as creationism as it was taught to me growing up. I’m really waiting on unanswered questions, the many many unanswered questions and despite questionable discoveries, flawed methods, corrupt scientists, crazed “creation scientists” with backyard country scientific degrees, anti-religious atheist, and scientifically illiterate christians, the truth will eventually find it’s way to the surface as technology slowly but surely advances..
Overall I think the scientific community, for the most part, cannot handle the idea that there could be a being or beings that have power and intelligence beyond our understanding or capabilities. Whether they be a “god”, or alien life-forms. And I don’t blame them for not putting much focus on such things as it seems we aren’t close to “scientifically proving” their existence. But enough happens that is unexplained and enough things discovered that are appear out of place or complete anomalies that I don’t see the belief or idea of their existence going away.
So to put it plainly I don’t think that creationism has a place in science class at this time but I have no problem with and have seen it with in philosophy classes and similar classes.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:50 am
No, abso-friggin’-lutely not. Not in a scientific sense, at least. In fact, I think children should be taught of the history of religion itself, and realise the mind-bending similarities between ancient Egyptian/Greek/Indian religions, worshipping and anthropomorphosizing celestial bodies, and Christianity. I have no problem with schools teaching Creationism in a non-preaching manner, letting students know that this is a belief and they can choose whether or not to believe it themselves, but certainly not in a way that leads students to believe that this is fact when, despite what your beliefs may be, it is not.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Randall:
“Extremist Christians KNOW they are peddling nothing but a falsehood in this… it is quite simply a backdoor way of getting THEIR belief system back into the mainstream, in order to overthrow science. And why? Because in their fundamentalist moronic heads, they cannot STAND the idea that the words of the Bible could be wrong, and thus their idiotic LITERAL interpretation of it could be wrong. Unable to loose themselves from this literalism, they see science as a challenge to their notion of reality, and so they will do ANYTHING to undermine it and dispose of it. It isn’t about gaining “fairness” or having “equal time.” All that malarkey (invalid anyway) is simply cover so they can gain the victory they feel they need, and start us on the rollback away from rationalism and logical reasoning.”
The irony of that is amazing…one could also say that atheists simply can’t accept that science might not be able to explain everything.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Sedulous:
Very well put
September 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
You forgot to mention as *what* it should be taught. In Biology, of course not since it’s not scientifically proven. In Religion, just *maybe*, but even then only with the important information that scientifically, there’s the fact (not theory!) of Evolution that disproves Creationism. Also, there are so many more important and widespread beliefs – i.e. Catholicism, Protestanism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. which should be mentioned first before you start polluting innocent children with Creationism.
Don’t do the Galileo, or we’re back to the dark ages (when religion was king). It’s not called Age of Enlightenment for nothing…
September 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
fishing4monkeys:
“The irony of that is amazing…one could also say that atheists simply can’t accept that science might not be able to explain everything.”
And where is the relevancy of this? I said nothing of the kind. I myself am, in fact, not an atheist.
Simply because someone doesn’t hold a dogmatic view as their basis for reality does NOT make them an atheist.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I don’t get what all the naysayers are afraid of. No one is saying it should be taught as fact, so why not let them learn it? A child’s head isn’t going to explode because you put God into it one period a day. Remember when it was a big deal to say “under god” during the pledge?
No reason to get all riled up. In 20,30,40 years maybe we’ll be teaching something other than the big bang- science disproves itself all the time.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Sedulous:
“Overall I think the scientific community, for the most part, cannot handle the idea that there could be a being or beings that have power and intelligence beyond our understanding or capabilities.”
On what do you base this on?
In fact your statement there is nonsense. Do you *know* any scientists? I know and have known many. They in fact don’t care about the question, because it is *irrelevant* to science, insofar as you are talking about god, since they aren’t in the business of proving or disproving god. Of course your statement could also be interpreted to refer to beings that are merely “beyond” us, and such things ARE interesting to science–scientists would be thrilled, for instance, to find out that a vastly superior (to us) intelligent life form existed somewhere in the universe. So to say that they “can’t handle” the idea is only further proven to be nonsensical. They’d jump at the chance to study it and know more, if it were possible.
I have never known a scientist in ANY field who was hostile to the idea of god. They simply consider him to be outside of their field of study.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Callie:
It is harmful because we are not dealing, here, simply with competing scientific ideas. Creationists want you to *think* that, but it is not in fact the case. It isn’t like the difference between Big Bang Theory and the (now discredited) Steady State Theory, nor is it like the difference between String Theory or M Theory and more traditional ideas of particle physics.
Creationism, rather, is a dogmatic challenge to science in general, and at heart it says that science is irrelevant and wrong, and that truth only exists in a single, literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.
So the more correct analogy would be to say that it’s like the difference between teaching science, on the one hand, and magic, on the other, to explain the world. There is no way to test, prove, or disprove magic, because at it’s very nature it is not scientific. Therefore it would mean to usurp and supplant science, not simply co-exist with it. Imagine, therefore, a college Engineering course that, instead of simply teaching the engineering principles of what makes a building stand up, ALSO were to teach that you could make buildings stand by sacrificing a goat and saying certain incantations and mixing certain potions, and the unseen spirits would then take care of the rest.
I’d prefer to have my high-rise apartment building built by engineers who practiced scientific principles rather than such mumbo-jumbo.
But that’s the same thing creationists are saying–that science can be supplanted and replaced by a mystical, dogmatic version (their version) of reality. The building that a magician would try to build using his bizarre methods would quickly crumble. So would a civilization that allows dogmatism and mystical nonsense to replace science, rationality, and reason.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I’m a very religious person, but creationism is pure CRAP. Teaching kids what it is will just confuse them. People are starting to think creationism is a religion in and of itself. This is a total waste of time for everyone. It should never be taught in school. When kids learn about religions, that alone will educate them that different people have different belief systems that ease their minds of complex questions. With science, we have very good proof on how things work, and that is more concrete than any religion – including my own. Religion is subjective, science gets to be worked on every day by thousands of people. If I’m going to be educated, I want it to be with science.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Ironically, many of the “15 answers to creationists” are the same arguements a CREATIONIST website says shouldn’t or are unwise to use.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
September 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I don’t live in the US so I don’t know exactly what it is the author is asking, does he mean creationism should be taught in a science class, or in a separate class like Religion or social studies? If it is the former, then of course no, and I can’t imagine anyone thinking otherwise. If it is the latter, then I think it’s ok. In my school we had a Religion class where we discussed our faith and the bible.
I’m a Catholic but not religious at all, I don’t know how to label myself (all these American names like atheist, liberal etc. don’t really exist elsewhere) but I’m open. If it was up to me, though, I wouldn’t keep those religion classes in school. It’s no harm, but that time could be better spent. I’d rather have another computer class, sport class, philosophy class or even cooking class. I believe those would be a better hour spent.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I think there are a lot of people missing the point. School is a place for facts. It’s not Sunday School. We all know creationism isn’t factual. It’s a soft approach to forcing kids to pick a religion by cramming it down their throats every day of the week. If you teach it in school then they have to write books on it, give them homework on it, start creating webpages about it, make kids write papers on it, have questions on tests about it, etc. I do not want future generations wasting time on a compilation of that fact that religion exists. We already teach kids about religions specifically, and that is factual. Kids need to spend much more time on math, history, language(s), etc. Religions should be taught as an overview b/c it’s an important aspect of the human race, but not creationism.
I think common sense needs to become a class. This world has completely lost touch with it.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
But no one learns in public schools anymore anyway. It’s all about money and test scores. Further elaboration: Creationism should be taught in religion class or church.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The problem is people are getting the Facts and Hypothesese mixed up.
Fact: There are millions of fossilized creature and plant remains buried in several miles worth of sediments in the earth.
Hypothesis (Evolution): These layers were laid down over millions of years and show a progression of creature evolution.
Hypothesis (Creationism): These layers were laid down in a catestrophic global flood. Seeming progression is a result of sorting and not millions of years of evolution
September 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am
“It’s a soft approach to forcing kids to pick a religion by cramming it down their throats every day of the week.”
Do schools even make an effort to address problems with evolutionary theory of give children the chance to think for themselves and form their own opinion by giving them a complete overview rather than one side?
Take for example that many parts of the world have constrasting views on history. The west sees 9/11 as a terrorist attack on freedom. The middle east sees it as a cry against what they see as neo-colonialism. It depends on what perspective you’re bringing to the table.
Creationism is offering another perspective and if evolution is irrefutable, than it has nothing to fear.
But would teaching Creationism be cramming religion down peoples throats? The public has sex, violance, scandal and evolution “crammed” down its throat every day so why not at least try and balance it out?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
For starters, to call me a moron is uncalled for.
Secondly, I said we have an inbuilt ability to know right from wrong i.e a conscience, but that doesn’t mean we always listen to it and eventually we can completely stifle it. At which point, pretty much anything goes.
And the fact that people have strayed from a biblical morality is not a fault of God but the fault of people.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“the belief that the rate of processes that would have “aged” the rock have always been the same and constant”
Right well stizy now for GCSE physics. Radioactive dating/Radiometric dating has many different forms. 18 infact.
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
stolen from wikipedia couse i cant be arsed
And not a single method falls short because of the theory of uniformitarianism*. They rely on a radioactive substance decaying at different rates. The ‘half-life’ of a radio active substance, the time it takes for the quantity to be half of its original value, is not in anyway effected by wether the uniformitarianism theory holds up or not. 14 year olds in England learn this stuff.
“Or are morals and ethics built into our very nature as a result of being designed to be that way? Ingrained with a conscience that can tell the difference between right and wrong. I’m not saying that it is based on historical beliefs of our ancestors.”
How do you explain cultural diversity then? How would you explain that a tribe in indonesia thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for canabalism to occur, or female circumcision? If you belive that we have an inate ability to tell right from wrong you really are a moron. What is right and wrong? They are so subjective it would be impossible to have a set moral or ethical code as situation changes so frequently. However the laws of the bible do make for a subdued society dont they. Could ‘Morality’ have developed alongside civilisation perhaps? Rules came about due to a need for rules. These Rules have been ingrained in society, not the individual, and they change from one generation to the next. The help us survive, they evolve.
Now you say that subjective morals are not a step in the right direction for civilisation. Well actually if you observe different societies throughout history you will find that everytime there is a big leap there is also a change in the laws and such which are, if nothing else, a reflection of the current morality. CURRENT morality, becuase it is in constant flux. No two situations are the same so why have one ruling? Because it is dogmatic and ignorant to do so? or because you want to follow the teachings of a book written between 1400 BCE and 95 CE and then fiddled with more than a catholic choir boy. In 325 CE the first council of nicea was held, and constantine I and his cronies decided upon the divinity of jesus and the relationship he should have with god. And you still belive every word it has to say. The authors of the gospels are entirely annonymous. A touch off subject.
“I would’ve thought morality and ethics as well as the desire to learn is what makes us civilized. And the vast majority of our morals and ethics are based on what would be called “religious” foundations.”
Just because they were based upon religious foundations does not mean they were originally religious. In fact the fact that some of the morals from the bible have faded out goes against the idea of objective morality. If the bible was the word of god, inspired by god… yadda yadda yadda winge winge winge…Then surely either he was wrong i.e. not omniscient, or shall we all meet up and go to a good stoning?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Teaching any creation myth, including the intelligent design creation myth, is child abuse. It shouldn’t be taught anywhere except to say only uneducated hicks believe in it.
This is all students need to understand: Creationism = Magic = Breathtaking Stupidity.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Oh and on the actual question not just rebutle. It’s not science and it’s not fact. So teach it in Religious education or perhaps history but NEVER TEACH IT AS FACT!
September 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Oh and on the actual question not just rebutle. It’s not science and it’s not fact. So teach it in Religious education or perhaps history but NEVER TEACH IT AS FACT!”
So Creationism Science isn’t science because?
And who is saying to teach it as fact? If there is a scientific discipline in Creationism, why can it not be taught as a form of science? It isn’t based purely on phylosophical or religion.
“Teaching any creation myth, including the intelligent design creation myth, is child abuse. It shouldn’t be taught anywhere except to say only uneducated hicks believe in it.”
How anyone can compare teaching their kid another point of view to child abuse is beyond me.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t form part of religious studies or related topics. Within a science lesson I think it could be useful to show how science and critical thinking are used to discount the idea of Creationism as a factual concept. Just today I was reading about a resurgence of Creationism in Britain – they use very persuasive rhetoric to turn people to their cause. I think it’s right to arm children with the tools to understand how to consider such diametrically opposed views and to evaluate the evidence (or lack thereof) for each properly. Such discussion is important in my view as I believe not enough emphasis on the use of critical thought is employed in the curriculum these days. Such a current and contentious issue is a perfect platform on which to base such teaching.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@123. fishing4monkeys
You can’t force a child to use reason in mathematics but not in science.
So you think that atheism, as the denying of any kind of dogma, is a dogma itself…so atheists must deny atheism itself and then have no reason to deny himself…
THEN GOD EXIST and I have to adore a terrorist that became a zombie and a sign that represent a torture tool. Ah! of course, then I must believe in a book that says women were made to serve men, world is flat and is the center of the Universe, and was made in seven (actually six) days.
And I must force all the offspring in my country to know what I believe because I’m very important and I represent all what’s good in the world and other people that have other absurd ideas (but they’re wrong because I MUST be true) doesn’t have the right to do the same.
@166. Stizzy:
“Hypothesis (Creationism): These layers were laid down in a catestrophic global flood. Seeming progression is a result of sorting and not millions of years of evolution”
try another one. This one was long ago debunked, but I think creationism have better hypothesis. Try with intelligent design maybe.
Intelligence is a senseless quality for a being isolated from any kind of environment. So if God was at first alone. ¿ Why must He be intelligent? He could be a dumb, and that can explain better the world how it is than believing Him intelligent. Why not?
September 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“Intelligence is a senseless quality for a being isolated from any kind of environment. So if God was at first alone. ¿ Why must He be intelligent? He could be a dumb, and that can explain better the world how it is than believing Him intelligent. Why not?”
Why would God being dumb explain the world better?
And how was the hypothesis I put debunked long ago?
I think the idea that mankinds disobedience leading to a curse on all creation explains the messed up world today better than a stupid god. Your assumption is that things have always been as messed up as they are now.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:16 am
What Randall Said “They in fact don’t care about the question, because it is *irrelevant* to science, insofar as you are talking about god, since they aren’t in the business of proving or disproving god.”
What I said “And I don’t blame them for not putting much focus on such things as it seems we aren’t close to “scientifically proving” their existence.”
I think i agree with you Randall(surprisingly). There isn’t any solid evidence pointing to the existence of god or intelligent alien lifeforms so I don’t blame them for not putting any scientific focus on it.
And I do agree, if alien beings with intelligence and technology landed on earth tomorrow, they would be clamoring to study them.
“I have never known a scientist in ANY field who was hostile to the idea of god. They simply consider him to be outside of their field of study.”
I have known a few scientists who were very hostile to the idea of god. As far as they were concerned science was god the very idea of the existence of a being beyond there power and understanding was something they almost took offense too.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
lol
I’m really starting to believe that God exist and is a dumb.
Look in the black holes for example.
It was the sixth with lot of work to do and God got tired after doing the neutron star. He though “I’ve done a degenerated gas of electrons, then another of neutrons, ¿what come next?”
And then He decided to make a body that none would be able to look inside. And he invented the speed of light and light itself ¿why not?
And if we manage to get inside a Black Hole we’ll find a sign saying “under construction” or Error 404…
…I’ll force Doctors in Theorical Physics to teach that in their relativity lessons
September 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Could someone in here provide me with solid proof the evolution is the way it happened?
Science isn’t always the answer, you very foolish set of people. Scientists once said that there were no such things as giant squids, or humans would never be able to fly. Why should I believe all the things they have to say now.
It’s very simple, you see. People choose to believe in evolution no matter how faulty and foolish it is, simply because they choose not to believe in God.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
No because it has nothing to do with school and there is supposed to be seperation of church and state. If you taught Creationism in social studies then you would have to teach every religions views on it, not just that God created the world. That would take too much time to teach every religion ever made. It also doesn’t make any sence that you would want to teach only Creationism. There are lots of other religious things so why just that. I think it would be okay to have an elective in high school for people interested in learning about religion, but it definately shouldn’t be taught in a normal class that everyone has to take even if they disagree.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
So..I was taught mythology in high school (we studied these in English class, actually, and the response was so overwhelming a seperate elective class was added) Several different tales from several different cultures. I learned Native American creationism stories, I learned about greek gods, roman gods, and we touched on Asian creationist tales as well. None of this screwed me up, I still believe in the science of the world. What would be so wrong with teaching Christian creationism right along with the rest of these?
Randall, it doesn’t demean or cut down science if it’s not presented as such. Present it as just another tale and where’s the issue?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
At my school learn about Greek and Roman Mythology in my Latin class. It is okay to learn about religion if it has to do with what you are studying. Like if you are learning about events in history that were infuenced by religion then it would be okay to teach a little bit about that religion so that the student knows what they beleived. It should definately be taught as fact though.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Stizzy:
I read the article you linked to, as well as many others on that site, and must say that it’s a bit disturbing to think that obviously intelligent people subscribe to such nonsense.
From what I see, Creationists make a living at trying to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution, which is exactly what Evolutionists try to do: test, test, test. Make observations, and reconcile that with the theory. Unfortunately, what sets Creationism aside from science, and into the realm of dogma, is that they do not and cannot scientifically test their own theory- they simply point the bible as their proof, and claim that any hole in the Evolutionary Theory is proof that their theory is correct. This is not science, and creationism is not testable, which means it cannot be a theory- it’s a belief.
What evidence do Creationists have to support their beliefs? The bible? Let’s not forget that there are many other current scientific theories that contradict the bible, including the Big Bang theory, that are supported with extensive experimental and observational evidence. The more tests run ,the more questions are exposed. This is not to say that the theories are not correct, but that they are works in progress.
The only progress Creationists make is when they must reshape their arguments to conform with nearly incontrovertible evidence that contradicts them.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I think Creationism should not be taught in schools as a scientific method for the origins of the universe. I don’t object to it being taught, as Jamie said, in a social studies class, or a religion class if such classes are offered. We are taught Greek and Roman mythology, among others, and I really see the Christian story of creation as something along those lines. I strongly object to Creationism being peddled to young children as FACT. Evolution is not a perfect theory, there are still questions being asked with every new answer scientists reveal. However, much of the information we have about evolution is factual, and that is what should be taught to students in science classes. Not God and “let there be light” or whatever.
Just because you believe in evolution does not mean you don’t believe in God, FYI. The two aren’t one in the same.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
100 responses from when I last wrote 8 hours ago.
I still have to say, I am horrified at some of the comments here. Mostly Stizzy, and fishing4monkeys, just very loosely turning the words around of what other people are saying to fit their mentality. I honestly believe these people actually feel justified in what they are saying and that is downright horrifying to me. These people will fight tooth and nail to prove that they aren’t wrong, even though their arguements are paper thin.
When I see things like this I want to leave the U.S., you’re and embarrassment to this entire country that has promoted growth, intelligence and education.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Sedulous:
We’ve clearly had vastly different experiences with the scientists we’ve known. I’ve had friends who were physicists, geologists, cell biologists, astronomers…. an ex-girlfriend who was a molecular biologist and mathematician… I’ve known top-flight engineers, specialists in aerospace, computer scientists… I could go on and on… and never met a single one of them who professed any hostility to the idea of god.
jerky: Your “argument” such as it is is completely without sense. A) no principle as fundamental as evolution has ever been proven, later, to have been wrong. Ideas are occasionally tweaked through time–science is, after all, self-correcting. But whole notions of reality have not yet been proven to be wrong. Evolution is a principle first documented and studied by the ancient Ionian Greeks for god’s sake. It’s as basic to biology as our understanding of the mechanics of gravity–i.e. that any object dropped will fall–is to physics. B) if you don’t want to believe in any science, be my guest–but pretty funny that you’re writing this on the INTERNET in front of a COMPUTER, and probably drive a CAR and own a TELEPHONE and other marvels of the science which you so blithely dismiss.
Callie:
The argument isn’t about presenting it in a mythology class or something of the kind. I would have thought that was rather obvious. Creationists don’t WANT creationism relegated to mythology. That’s the whole point.
Stizzy:
YOU may believe in the myth of mankind’s disobedience to god. OTHER religions and faiths do NOT. I would assume you’d therefore next point out that those other religions are “wrong” then. But why should YOUR view of reality trump all others? What gives YOU the insight that others (so you would claim) lack?
Also, I note, Stizzy, that I answered you a while back and, like all who argue for creationism and other such nonsense, you then proceeded to ignore my answers. Telling.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hey Crew! Nice Can of worms!
First: I’d like to apologize to anyone who has been hurt by “Religion” or a well(or not so well)intentioned “Religeous” person. SORRY!!! Poor teaching of the Bible has and is doing a lot of damage. It’s about God’s Love for us and his Desire to Help and be Friends with us. The Bible is not a science book, however- when it conveys a scientific fact- it does so accurately. Remember: “It was by FAITH that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Second: I believe it should be PRESENTED. Even if the view SOUNDS CRAZY- I Really try to keep an open mind. Do I know the secrets of the universe(s) or the Mystery of Life? I have seen some CRAZY things in my years on earth, and I am reluctant to belittle or mock anyone. Be slow to speak, and quick to listen. REMEMBER: If GOD is involved- All bets are off! And then you’ll have to explain YOUR theories of Creation to HIM!
Third: The scientific community has a history of being just a dogmatic as the church. And God help those who come against it’s hallowed gates! Remember Velikovsky? I’m not saying he was right(and he might be!) but he was lambasted by people who had never even read his book. Look- I’ve got text books from 40 years ago LOADED with bad info that was accepted as fact then.
Finally: Are you willing to open your mind and heart? Jesus said “You must come to me like a little child.” Why? Because this is a Trust and Faith issue. Have you gone to God and SINCERELY asked for an answer? I have! He’s AMAZING! The answers are ALL there! AND- they will be backed by science.
Thanks!
Peace!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Sorry but there is no science involved in creationism, I don’t care what any of you people say. If a scientist is trying to prove creationism, then he/she already has an outcome that they are looking for, leading there studies to be biased, this is NOT SCIENCE!!! 2nd of all the scientist and doctors trying to say that creationism is science, went to a Christian University, need I say more. The issue here is that these christain fanatics are trying to change the whole definition of science just so some STORY, NOT THEORY, could be taught in science class. We might as well teach the kids about The Force and the Dark Side in Star Wars!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ooh.. this is getting good! My thought, I think that Creationism should not be taught in public schools. I think that it is the parents’ responsibility to teach those things to their children, if those are their beliefs. Evolution, on the other hand, has much evidence to back it up, and should be considered fact, not theory. I don’t understand why so many people think that Creationism and Evolution are so different. I am a Christian myself, and I think the Genesis story of Creation goes along very well with the theory of evolution, it’s just condensed. Even though I think God has a hand in the evolution of our universe, I do not think that all school children should be subjected to it, that should be a parent’s job.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
@175. Stizzy
“Why would God being dumb explain the world better?”
It’s a more plausible hypothesis than the inteligent design. If He’s not that much intelligent that can explain all the contradictions in creationism. The answer is just: “He didn’t know what He was doing”
So to earn credability creationists must follow my “Dumb Design” theory.
“And how was the hypothesis I put debunked long ago?”
:-O
over and over. Cranks lie everywhere…
Search it for yourself if you want.
But don’t you really find this idea crazy? Where did that water came from? where have gone now? What happen with carbon dating?. To start building the begining of a “proto”-pseudoscientific hypothesis you must answer at least those questions. And if you still want to teach that in school, knowing it has nothing to do with science, please read back comment #91.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
NO.
Creationists don’t even know their own bible well. Seven is an ancient Hebrew number for infinity. The 7 days of creation isn’t the only example of seven being used as a metaphor for that. In another part of the bible Jesus said that you must forgive your enemies 7 x 7 x 7^7777 or something like that (I just remember it involved a lot of sevens). Did he mean to do the math? NO! He means you ALWAYS have to forgive.
Being religious is no excuse for being retarded. There’s no reason to teach religion in a science class, especially not MISINTERPRETED religion.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Both theories should be taught.
Following the rules of natural selection the superior theory will be the one most people believe and consequently the weaker argument will die away.
The other option is that the only one of the theories is taught.
This however will require someone to design an appropriate curriculum. I would suggest that they are given about six days to put this into action.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Surfboy, your facts are anything but:
“The Bible is not a science book, however- when it conveys a scientific fact- it does so accurately.” ***Absolutely ridiculous. Have you even read the bible? Do I really need to list the numerous erroneous “scientific facts” found in the bible? The flood story alone contains about 100 of them.
“Third: The scientific community has a history of being just a dogmatic as the church.” ***More nonsense. By definition, science cannot be dogmatic. Blaming a few nutty scientists for their disregard of the scientific method is akin to blaming all of christianity for the crusades. Do you want to go down that road?
“Look- I’ve got text books from 40 years ago LOADED with bad info that was accepted as fact then.” ***And as more information is gathered, and more knowledge gained, theories get altered based on further understanding of the truth. However, while science has repeatedly found natural answers to questions that used to be thought of as supernatural, they have never, not once, found anything that would lend any credence to a supernatural theory for anything. In fact, even defining what is supernatural is factually impossible. The religious simply ignore any evidence to the contrary of any folk tale found in the compilation of bedtime stories written by people who lived in caves and thought illness was the result of demonic possession.
“Finally: Are you willing to open your mind and heart?” ***My mind is open to the current results of painstaking research performed over years and years by experts, and alter what I believe is factual based on said findings. You believe in the stories found in a 2000 year old book, and alter the meaning of any scientific discovery to fit the conclusions drawn by your interpretation of said book. Whose mind needs opening here?
“Jesus said “You must come to me like a little child.” Why? Because this is a Trust and Faith issue. Have you gone to God and SINCERELY asked for an answer? I have! He’s AMAZING! The answers are ALL there! AND- they will be backed by science.” ***Faith is the security blanket of the willfully ignorant.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yes, as well as evolution. Its important that children know all of the major religion and views, not just one way. Personally, I don’t believe in creationism but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it shouldn’t be taught. (And when I say creationism I don’t just mean god! I mean the ancient religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.)
September 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Of course children should know that there is people whom believe in creationism. Hiding something from someone is the best way to drive him to it!
I think, however, that it should be stated clearly that Creationsm and Evolutionism do NOT share the same chance of being correct! School is for science and certainly creationism does not pertain it.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
In Private Schools: yes. Catholic and other private schools have the right to teach whatever religious beliefs they want to the children.
in Public Schools: HELL NO! The next thing you know our tax money will be going towards teaching kids about stoning gays and enslaving other nations (both are said to be okay in the old testement.)
Besides, I’m catholic myself and I don’t believe in it. I don’t know anyone that does. In high school my religion teacher always talked about the symbolism in these stories and how they shouldn’t be taken literally.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
When I look at Adam, Eve and what not, I see it as a story of morals. I really don’t see how it’s suggesting Gman created everything with a snap of his fingers.
Yet, I really don’t care what others think, so that’s why I’m basically neutral on this topic. It maybe me, but I’ve never seen what the whole huge controversy about this is. I think they should teach both and let you decide what you want to believe in.
I can already see the next commenter ripping this whole post apart.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“So Creationism Science isn’t science because?
And who is saying to teach it as fact? If there is a scientific discipline in Creationism, why can it not be taught as a form of science? It isn’t based purely on phylosophical or religion”
Where in creationist ’science’ is there any form of science. How is it not based purely on the biblical account. If it is not based purely on the biblical account then it is not creationism.
“Science isn’t always the answer, you very foolish set of people. Scientists once said that there were no such things as giant squids, or humans would never be able to fly. Why should I believe all the things they have to say now?”
Science is constantly progressive and thats why you should belive in it because even though they belived at the time there was no such thing as a giant squid they never stopped looking. and as for the whole humans would never achive flight thing i think you have either taken a quote out of context, a common mistake, or are just ramming it in there and saying ‘yea scientists said that.’
“So you think that atheism, as the denying of any kind of dogma, is a dogma itself…so atheists must deny atheism itself and then have no reason to deny himself…”
Atheism is not beliving in any god or supernatural entity. Dogmatacism has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Moron.
“And how was the hypothesis I put debunked long ago”
If a global flood caused the layers of the earths surface they would not be as distinguished as they are. Water would seperate density. nothing more nothing less. And if you are going for a divine intervention track then it is not a scientific theory as you have to rely on a divine intervener.
“So..I was taught mythology in high school (we studied these in English class, actually, and the response was so overwhelming a seperate elective class was added) Several different tales from several different cultures. I learned Native American creationism stories, I learned about greek gods, roman gods, and we touched on Asian creationist tales as well. None of this screwed me up, I still believe in the science of the world. What would be so wrong with teaching Christian creationism right along with the rest of these”
You studied it in English, not in science. I to studied mythology for a while and found it fascinating, on an anthropological level, but you, as i, studied dead religious beliefs. Thats all ‘mythology’ is, dead religious beliefs. And if you have this knowledge that nobody seriouly belives it any more then it is facinating but if i were 12 and had someone teaching me creationism as science and telling me that alot of people belive this then i might just take it seriously as science and become dogmatic and ignorant. Science is science because it is progressive. I was taught from the age of 5 till i was about 11 or 12 that God was a supreme being who created the universe…blah di blah di bullshit… and it did me no favours. I had a hard time understanding the evidence against religion and then one day, when i was 15, a protestant priest said to me ‘read the bible and all will become clear child,’ and it bloody well did. The nonsense in there is astounding.
“The scientific community has a history of being just a dogmatic as the church”
Nice amount of evidence you put foward for that lil’ tidbit. Science, by definition, can’t be dogmatic. Moron. And the fact that ou have textbooks form 40 years ago loaded with shite is sort of proving that science is not dogmatic and is progressive wouldn’t you say…hmmm?
“And when I say creationism I don’t just mean god! I mean the ancient religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc”
What is the point? Ancient theories are for archeologists and anthropologists not children. Why teach theories that have no evidence in a science class. In religious studies, go for it, i think RE is a very important subject, but it has it’s limits and should know and respect them.
Also on the topic of respect, there was a preacher in town the other day and he was ranting and raving and condeming people to hell and what not and i was eating in a cafe nearby and found it a nuiscence. So i walked over there and said could you please be quite and the argument progressed and he began shouting and so i shouted louder and so on and so forth and then a two police officers who were walking by came over, there was alot of shouting by this point, and said right calm down and so i explained what was going on. They told me that i should not be so disrespectful of this man as he was just preaching his religion and told me to cease and desist or i would be arrested and held over night. I was just having lunch with my fience and some mad man was shouting and i get in trouble. he wasn’t respecting me was he. There is an absurd amount of respect for peoples religious beliefs. And an absurd lack of it for atheists beliefs.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
how about teaching creativolutism
September 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Sorry, we cannot teach utter falsehoods in school as fact.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
ahhh, religion vs science: the most controversial subject of all time
(maybe only surpassed by Spongebob and the Teletubbies being gay controversy)
September 15th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
absolutely not, theres no proof backing up creationism, just a crazy book that says it happened. Evolution has -
Fossil Evidence
DNA Evidence
Carbon Dating
Fecal Growth Cycle
Vestigal Structures
Homologous Structures
September 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“What is the point? Ancient theories are for archeologists and anthropologists not children. Why teach theories that have no evidence in a science class. In religious studies, go for it, i think RE is a very important subject, but it has it’s limits and should know and respect them.”
Greek Mythology? All that? Yeah, that’s kinda important. you need to know the history of religion.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
If we were to teach creationism in schools which version would we teach? Would it be Genesis or the Hindu belief, or maybe Babylonian? Zoroastrian? Pick one? Oh, that’s right, there’s only one acceptable creation mythology and that’s the one we’d have to teach. Simply put one religion feels that its fiction is better than everyone else’s
September 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
i donno actually…
September 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think that we should have the kids take a form home to their parents, asking the parents if they want to have the child to be taught the idea of evolution, or creationism. Then, when the child brings back the form, the administration brings the child into a different class where a teacher specializes in teaching that idea.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if people learn creationism or not. They can believe whatever.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
@ dave4248 : Comment 150.
HAHA! Brilliant! Funniest post I’ve read yet!
@ Stizzy
I was willing to debate with you, until I realized how deceptive and ill-informed your debates were. A global flood causing the build up of fossil layers due to ’sorting’? This should be enough to make everyone ignore you.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
i just finished reading a fascinating book that i would recommend highly.
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Tim Keller
i think it would shed all sorts of light on this topic. someone look into it and comment.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Look, this is SCIENCE class, not theology, social studies or philosophy. The ook of genesis has no scientific theory behind it; it says a all powerful god poofed a man who made a woman out of a rib. Sorry, science will tell you that spontainious generation and making people from ribs is not factual. Plus, the concept of intelligent design in it’s most general form is already taught, it’s the book of genesis they advocate for. Less than half of the world believes in Adam and Eve (though it is very close mto half). If people want to learn this, then school, government run, seperated from the church, free to go to, all religions welcome SCIENCE classes should not teach it, end of story.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think it’s worth teaching students ABOUT creationism, but not as a truth, just as part of their humanities class or something. And they shouldn’t just stick to teaching about one religion either, if they’re going to learn about other people’s belief systems, they should learn about a large range of them.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Randall:
“The argument isn’t about presenting it in a mythology class or something of the kind. I would have thought that was rather obvious. Creationists don’t WANT creationism relegated to mythology. That’s the whole point.”
The argument is “should creationism be taught in schools?” My answer is yes, presented along with mythology/fables/english class, not in science. I’m answering the argument exactly as I’m supposed to. Leave it to you to mince words though. Let me ask you this:
A child is raised in a loving, non religious home. He has morals and strong principles, but is never directly (i.e. Sunday school, religious service, church) taught about religion/creationism, and it is never presented to him in school alongside mythology and other fables.
He grows up and goes to college. In Philosophy 101, a creationism vs. science argument breaks out. He sits in a corner, asking asinine questions and generally making an ass out of himself because he was never taught something as harmless as the theories of geometry.
Too detailed? Nope, cause it happened to a kid in my class in college. I and most of my classmates were versed in creationism and other stories of that ilk, and this kid just sat around and sulked without contributing.
I’m surprised someone in the teaching field would think to rob schoolchildren of any course of knowledge that could help them later on. Shame on you.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
And we’re back with the Stizzy, DoppHopper, and Randall show…
Again, I say “no” and will treat you all to a scenario that bothers me. Say I’m not Christian (if you did, you’d be correct). Say I’m raising my children to be…I don’t know…Asatruan. I have raised them with the beliefs around that religion. One day my child comes home and says, “In class today we learned that the world is very old and we evolved from monkeys. That differs from what you said about Yggdrasil, and Odin, etc. etc.” I would answer something back about how science has it’s working theory and that what I taught him/her was what our religion says, which bases it’s “proof” upon faith, not facts, and that s/he could choose to believe in what I said, in Evolutionism, or a smattering of both. It would be a challenge for my child to think about this and would be fine with me.
Now, the next week my child comes home and says, “In class today we learned that the world is actually young and we were created from clay by someone named ‘God’”. I would be upset, unless in the very near future, the school followed up with every other creation story it could find. I’m NOT paying tax dollars to the school to promote Christianity. Teaching only the Christian version of Creationsim is creating a monopoly on creation theories.
It would confuse children to teach one thing, then an opposing theory, at least at that point in their lives. You don’t go into third grade and tell a child, “2 + 2 = 4″, then the next week follow up with “2 + 2 = 5 when the 2s are actually 2.5″. They would go, “Wait…that’s not what you said last week” and the teacher would follow up with “Well, that’s a different branch of mathematics, we just wanted you to know both”.
I think any respecting Christian family would have taught the theory at home or had it taught in Sunday school/church or else they didn’t want their child to know.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Callie: When the issue arises that the school budget is cut (yet again) and I’m presented with the choice of having religion taught or art, I’m gunna go with the latter. Just my opinion.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I am so glad that where I live this is a non-issue. My goodness there are people here advocating not teaching about the origin of life at all. It is unnecessary? One of the first things we learned about in school was the age of the dinosaurs. What kid doesn’t get all fired up to learn by dinosaurs? Our grade one class had that famous poster (the one that shows the different skeletons, early hominid to human)in a prominent position. What the hell would you teach, and how could you inspire children to learn by not answering the big questions – Where did the dinosaurs go? How long did they live here? Where did I come from and how did I get here?
Just try instituting creationism or diluting our science classes for religious reasons. You’d be laughed out of the room. It really is pathetic that this argument is even necessary. You guys wrote the line about freedom of religion; teaching creationist dogma as a scientific theory does just that. To every religion out there except one very stupid narrow interpretation of Christianity.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
so, for the guys getting riled up about the possibility of teaching “creationism”, where is the harm in teaching this as a theory?
September 15th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Teach creationism in a class called “The History of Human Stupidity”.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Right on Callie! How could you Science only people think it’s ok to rob children of being educated… especially in a subject that surrounds a majority of people in society. Who needs the exclusiveness of a science class to teach it? just so long as it’s presented in public schools in some shape or form…
@@@@@@DoppHopper- Most christians are NOT evolutionsts…. its pointless to suggest every website you read is fact. Mind you in your comment on 71, I would think someone with a Masters degree in Biology would have some idea as to what is proven fact and what isn’t.
@@@@@@Tj- who said I reject science? I most certainly don’t. I merely believe Scientific things that are not 100% conclusive should have the same rights as creationists thoughts. Both being not 100% proveable yet both are regarded highly in the major population of America.
Callie’s been getting it right people. Teaching about God isn’t going to hurt children. I’m a fan of anything being taught to our children as long as it has strong relevence in our society. Because Science dis-proves itself and revises it’s books doesn’t mean the science classes of days past should be thought of as learned in vain. We teach what we’ve gathered so that our children can use that knowledge to go further… that’s the point of education. Just because the creationists don’t continually change and revise their book doesn’t make it any less valid or truthful.
You can say Chritians are crazy and believe some crazy book of tales, but also realize some peoplpe think the same of us in the scientific community and think all that we study for and spend our lives learning and documenting are in vain. They think our Science books and findings are ludicris based on their understandings of the world… If niehter side can PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt that the other is wrong, both are valid in my book to be taught so our children can find resolutions to the fights we ourselves cannot prove.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
No. In the United States there is a separation of Church and State so it would be unconstitutional (for state funded schools) to teach a creationism because it is based around the belief that there is a (christian)God.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Sorry, I’m up to my eyebrows. Not got time to read everything, so hope this is not answering the same point twice. I’m reacting to a comment from a fair bit earlier about: Facts and theories (from a scientific viewpoint).
A fact is an observable phenomenon. It does not explain anything or stand for anything but itself. It just is.
Broadly speaking theories (and also hypotheses) attempt to explain the existence, significance and relationships of observable phenomena. A hypothesis is a kind of proto-theory, a *temporary* or deductive explanation of facts where there is not enough evidence to support a theory. A theory is a much more confident explanation, usually backed by a great deal of careful evidence, and likely to be generally accepted by science. If a hypothesis proves to be sound and stands the test of evidence, it will probably become a fully-fledged theory. Both hypothesis and theory will stand for as long as they cannot be disproved or superseded by a better, and no longer.
Example:
A man produces a strange skull he found and claims it is a missing link between man and ape (an unsupported claim).
An anthropologist examines it quickly, asks a few relevant questions and supports the claim subject to more careful investigation (a hypothesis relating to evolution).
Detailed forensic and other studies support the hypothesis (the skull is therefore accepted as key evidence in primate evolutionary theory).
More sophisticated testing methods are developed with time. The skull is later discovered to be a cunning fake made of part human, part chimpanzee bones. Piltdown Man. The *theory* has broken down in the face of rigorous scientific testing.
The skull itself was and is a simple, unchanging fact. However analysis first interpreted it as a genuine evolutionary link, then later revealed it as a fraud.
Later finds in Africa will provide the hominid sequence that Piltdown Man promised but failed to deliver.
Footnote: Creationists triumphantly claimed Piltdown Man as proving evolution to be a falsehood. Which of course is itself sheer nonsense. That is as logical as saying that because someone builds a rotten aeroplane which cannot leave the ground, no aeroplane will ever be able to fly!
September 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Creationism, whether it’s called creation science or intelligent design, is nothing more than an idiotic childish belief in abracadabra magic. Only uneducated brain-dead hicks believe in it. Before the creationist retards renamed ‘creation science’ to ‘intelligent design’ (neither is science), Gould explained why biology teachers would never agree to teach it.
“Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?”
– Stephen Jay Gould
September 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Creationism should not be taught anywhere, not even in Sunday school, because it’s child abuse to lie to children, and nothing could be more dishonest than telling a child a magic sky fairy created people.
To any creationist retards reading this, grow up morons. This is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages. Educate yourselves or expect the ridicule and contempt you deserve.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Tink and Callie: You’re good with the “all” rather than the “none”? Can I start a curriculum teaching about ALL theories of creationism, then? I mean, what harm can it do, right? Teaching kids about Vishnu and Zeus and Satan and Ba’al and the religions behind them. I mean, it would take weeks, perhaps months away from curriculum about other subjects, but it’s info, and the more information we tell the kids, the better. While we’re at it, let’s teach them what suicide is and the best ways to kill yourself. How about crackin’ open the old Anarchist Cookbook? Knowledge is power, people, and we want our kids to be extra knowledgable!
Yeah, I took the slippery slope with that one. I still think, as a non-Christian, it is a slap in the face for people to think it’s a great idea for me to pay people to teach my children a different religious base without offering all other religions. I’d have no problems with it and every other religious creation story being taught in classrooms (if it can be done briefly), but that’s not what we’re talking about. Creationists, with a capital C, mean Christians, and they only want that version taught (and they get uppity about it being referred to as a “theory”).
I think the best place creation stories to be taught, if they must be, would be the English classroom: use it as a learning opportunity to get students to do some creative writing assignment on their religion’s creation story or Evolutionism. I had a spectacular English class in eighth grade where all we did was read and creatively write. And we presented them in front of the class (working on our public speaking, too).
Anon (footnote): Yeah, and when they hold that up as “fact against fact”, it holds scientists accountable for a goof. But when we hold up “faith against faith”, in the countless times that faith does not work, they write it off as “God works in mysterious ways”. So, it’s okay for faith to be without proof, but not for scientists to be duped once.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Cedestra- you know what, I like that English class idea as well. It is well thought out, educates, and does a service for public speaking. i understand the view where you’re coming from and respect it. Thank you for making your arguement well thought out and not pointlessly lashing at things you particularly don’t believe in. I like that.
For everyone else, I don’t see this as an issue to get angry over. If you feel your tax-paying investments aren’t teaching what you want for your children, teach them yourself.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Teach it. It will be a short course, One word: “Goddidit” What else is there to teach? You teach evolution first, then at then end say “And the competing “theory” is, god made it all. 6000 years ago, but to look millions, nay, billions of years old. Just to trick us. Oh no, sorry, to test our faith in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
September 15th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I have youth group tonight so i think i will ask about this… i think my opinions may have been changed
September 16th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Hi Anon: Comment 223.
I think your pushing the proverbial uphill by trying to explain the difference between fact, theory and guess to creationists. It has already been explained about 10 times in this thread alone, and the only conclusion is that creationists DON’T want to differentiate between theory and guess. It is unbelievably frustrating.
If I read someone arguing one more time that ‘evolution is only a theory’ I am going to burst! It is a simplistic, stupid and extremely ignorant argument so stop saying it!!!
PLEASE, creationists, stop confusing theory, fact and guessing. It is getting extremely old.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
To the people who say evolution is just a “theory”…
Gravity is also just a “theory,” does science have it wrong there too?
Let me guess, evertime I throw a baseball in the air it doesn’t “fall,” your god is really just throwing it back at me, right?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:19 am
@219. dischuker:
I know is hard to read all the comments. I already answered that in #92 and #93
September 16th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Hi sdggrant,
Sorry to be picky but lets get this straight. Gravity isn’t a theory. Gravity is a fact. The geometric bending of space-time caused by objects with mass is the theory. Just as evolution is the fact and natural selection is the theory.
Anyway to get back to the original point, I also want to add that why is it that creationists only target the biology classroom? They argue that it should be taught alongside evolution as they are both ‘theories’. Well if that is the case why aren’t creationists pushing for holocaust denial to be taught alongside holocaust studies? They are both ‘theories’ according to their loose definition. Why aren’t celebrity diets being taught alongside nutritional information classes as well? Just goes to show…
September 16th, 2008 at 3:06 am
It isn’t bad to know about creationism, we all do, but until it can be studied and tested and have plausible assertions made about it scientifically then it should be taught as myth. Most people here seem to be ok with it being taught as fables and myths but the dangerous part is the creationists want it taught as fact and until they do the science and leave the faith out of it it never should be.
I used to go to Sunday school from about the age of 4, mainly to get us out of the house for an hour or so, and even at that age I used to sit there and wonder how so many people could be so gullible. I believed in Santa (he bought me presents) but could not believe these ridiculous stories they told, absolutely pathetic.
Religion of any specific kind should not be taught at school, an overview of all religions is ok then even the churchgoers learn tolerance for other religions and not just the stupid stories of their own leaders.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:12 am
@Matt
“Sorry to be picky but lets get this straight. Gravity isn’t a theory. Gravity is a fact. The geometric bending of space-time caused by objects with mass is the theory. Just as evolution is the fact and natural selection is the theory.”
Sorry Matt but they are theories, IO admit they are getting harder to debunk but that doesn’t mean they never will be.
I will rewrite a quote I put earlier in this thread, attributeds to Einstein “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but one experiment could prove me wrong”
This is why sceintific theories remain as theories they are works in progress and something could always come along and change the accepted ideas. Religion is wrong because it doesnt allow this to happen whatever IS has always BEEN and always wll BE no changes allowed.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Hi Tom,
Again, the arguments that explain HOW these things occur are theories, that is true. But gravity IS a fact. An object will fall towards another object of greater mass, this is what gravity is. The THEORY, is the argument that explains WHY this occurs. I could keep listing examples, for example the Sun is hot. This is the fact. But the theory is that the heat is caused by the fusion of hydrogen into helium due to the pressures involved, which in turn radiates energy (heat).
I touched on that quote by Einstein, it relates directly to Popper’s falsification theory i.e. a theory isn’t ’scientific’ unless it can be proved wrong.
I agree that Religion is not science due to it taking a rigid, accepted and untestable truth (God existing) and basing all arguments around that.
Gravity is not a theory. Evolution is not a theory. They are facts; they are the worlds data. How we explain how these things occur are theories.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Come on, we’re all starting to get pinciketty about terminology. The big bang, evolution, gravity all derive from science. Yes, they are theories but they do have the benefit of overwhelming evidence. Religions, of all types, are fundemently beliefs. Religion should absolutley not be taught as a science. It can, in my veiw, be taught in relgious eduction classes. It was to me. However, we were also taught the fundementals of many other religions at the same time. Frankly it was all very interesting and I think I came out with a more respectly view of the religious than I went in with.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Matt,
I agree with what you say, I think I just read the first comment too quickly.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:35 am
And I repeated the Einstein quote for the people that missed it to try and give some understanding to how a theory works
September 16th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Lol anyways this will be my last post, I’ve contributed my opinion, if people want to go on constantly mixing up theory, fact and guesses that’s their choice, but it does lead to confusion and frustration.
I support creationism being taught in school, based solely on the fact that the evolution vs creationist debate is not only a national (in the U.S) conflict, but the outcome will have a massive effect on how science classic in the U.S are conducted. This debate between creationism and evolution should therefore be taught, as it is an extremely important political and social development. In NO WAY should creationism be let near any science class. Just because creationism is classed as a theory doesn’t mean it is the strongest theory to explain the abundance and diversity of life on Earth. Might as well teach the kids about Thor and Zeus as well. Anyway, I think this has been a great topic, so thanks jfrater!!
September 16th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Oh yeah one more thing…Dinosaurs are friggin awesome
September 16th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Callie:
Educators are not in the business of presenting every single competing idea, however asinine and untenable (as Creationism is) to children. If they were to do so, you’d never get out of school.
The example you give, of a student who had never heard of creationism, is just silly. What manner of rock was that kid living under that he reached college-age maturity and had never heard of this highly controversial and divisive subject, which goes back at least as far as the Scopes Monkey Trial? (Why hadn’t he ever heard of THAT?) Teachers cannot be faulted for the *total* ignorance of those people who fail to ALSO educate THEMSELVES outside of school by reading or simply watching TV news now and then.
No, again… there is no argument that validates why creationism should be taught in any school.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:57 am
randall: “no argument that creationism should be taught in any school”. isn’t that a little dramatic?
what if it is presented in the current forum? what if it is a private or home school? what if it is taught just to show what people might believe in the face of commonly accepted conclusions?
alot of the arguments against teaching creationism presented in this thread sound alot like the arguments that are constantly pummeled as naive/timid concerning whether or not sex ed should be taught. i.e., “it just isn’t right”, “they will find out on their own”, “i don’t want my kids exposed to that”, etc.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:57 am
I think that the criteria itself that determines what is taught where should determine the solution to this argument.
It’s important to mention that evolution isn’t taught in schools because it is the end all, be all, universally accepted answer. Even within the scientific community, there are people who argue (and argue well, let’s not stereotype people!) for and against evolution.
Do we teach evolution because we think it’s the most viable approach? If that is the case, I think that our concern shouldn’t be to choose a scientific perspective and prove our claims; our concern should be examining the scientific validity of claims to creation, which shouldn’t be limited to simply evolution.
Do we teach evolution because we feel it’s the only end-all, be all answer? Then we need to give equal ground to opponents of evolution, because as long as there are respectable members of the scientific community in opposition, we cannot make this claim.
However, if it’s being taught simply because the nature and scope of our teaching system has selected evolution as a topic of focus for scientific study, then I don’t see a reason to force in any other viewpoint. Consider courses such as history or law; each one will take a particular viewpoint – either being a general survey, or focusing on a specific topic like property rights or history of America – simply because that is the stated scope of the course. However, I would argue that sufficient justification both to the students and public at large needs to be made as to the reason why evolution, as opposed to some other system, was selected.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Creationism is a theory, a faith-based theory yes, but still a theory, no more or less accurate than the Big Bang, and possibly even less analytical. Students should not have to be taught one theory when excluding hundreds of others just like it. Conventional wisdom has ignited a war of words that can never be extinguished, and the conflagration can only become more severe with each debate exhibited in the name of its cause. In other words, argument is futile.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:08 am
As long as history is accurate, I believe it should be taught. But not theory, especially not theological theory. Faith is not a bad thing until it’s organized into a rigid system of morals and myths.
As for all myths not being religions, mea culpa. What I should have said was, all historically proven mythologies known to have been enacted as religious ceremonial constructs. So far, I haven’t ascertained any that can be excluded from the criteria.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I think that all belief systems should be introduced. However, not influenced upon. Let the individual make his/ her own decision.
Enough damage is already done by parents even before kids reach school.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:23 am
isn’t it pretty obvious that, apart from the scientific arguments, that this is a war against christianity?
nobody says boo when we teach that the ancient egyptians mummified their leaders with their body parts, money and maps for the next world believing it would do some good. this is teaching of a religious belief and what it led people to do. we look at that and say “interesting”. it isn’t put through the same set of criteria that this current debate is.
in social studies class we watched “clash of the titans” (where were the screams about child abuse then? i had to look at harry hamlin in a loin cloth!
. this movie told us all about greek gods and their influence over mortals and, behold, THE CRACKEN!!! (emphasis added) i don’t remember there being an uproar or needing my parents to sign a permission slip.
why? because nobody was threatened by these teachings. so then the question comes, why are people threatened by the teaching of this particular creation account?
to me the answer seems that to accept this account would mean all sorts of other things. if there was an all powerful God who personally created each one of us and everything other thing, there is a level of submission that needs to take place to his desires. aye, theres the rub.
if an impersonal force of nature is the governing process i have no obligation.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:53 am
It should be taught in catechism
It shouldn’t be taught publicly. Remember, in public schools you’ve got kids from all sorts of religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), not just Christianity. A lot of it would be way over their heads, and they might not believe any of it simply because it’s not what their religion teaches. This one gets filed in the NO column for me.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:15 am
“nobody says boo when we teach that the ancient egyptians mummified their leaders with their body parts, money and maps for the next world believing it would do some good. this is teaching of a religious belief and what it led people to do. we look at that and say “interesting”. it isn’t put through the same set of criteria that this current debate is.”
Thats a good point and I totally agree with you.
“why? because nobody was threatened by these teachings. so then the question comes, why are people threatened by the teaching of this particular creation account?
to me the answer seems that to accept this account would mean all sorts of other things. if there was an all powerful God who personally created each one of us and everything other thing, there is a level of submission that needs to take place to his desires. aye, theres the rub.”
This, however, is completely incorrect. To imply that atheists – what? Secretly believe in God? – is offensive in the extreme. Here’s the point – we do not comsider Christian creationism to be a threat to our eternal souls. We consider it to be a threat to human and intellectual progress.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:16 am
A point against it being taught at all – why should the Christian creation myth get taught over and above that of Islam, Hinduism or of the Ancient Egyptians? Discuss.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I belive that this swing toward creatioism is symtomtic of a general dumming down in our world culture, it is easier not to ask the hard questions, the last time this kind of aceptance of folk lore was adopted it lead to a 500 year dark ages where people were being burnt at the stake for their ideas and I would not have to rely on our uninformed youth to ignite a new renaisance
September 16th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Dischuker:
“isn’t that a little dramatic?”
Not at all. Creationism is the product of ONE ultra-dogmatic view of ONE religion. Schools are in the business of teaching our children the NECESSARY skills which they require to become intelligent, productive citizens and to form a basis, should they desire to do so, to pursue further education in adulthood. For this reason we teach them maths, pertinent histories, introduce them to basic sciences which are vital to our understanding of the world we inhabit and life in general, and we make them study their own languages and other languages, and various other sundry subjects.
Now… where, in this, do you see ANY valid argument for teaching creationism? It’s not a scientifically valid theory–certainly the GREAT consensus of scientists in the various fields it’s “relevant” to says that it is not valid. It’s nothing more than an extremist Christianity in disguise, trying to hone in on the education system. Why should we lend IT any more validity than we would lend the idea of teaching children magic and wizardry, or divination, or tarot card reading? It’s no less mystically based than these. All it does is attempt to *masquerade* as an “alternative” science, in order to further an agenda that lies behind it.
“what if it is presented in the current forum? what if it is a private or home school? what if it is taught just to show what people might believe in the face of commonly accepted conclusions?”
WHY waste time on it? WHY waste time the way you’re suggesting?
Dischuker, do you have ANY idea how much stuff kids have to learn? Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to be a teacher? Do you have ANY idea how long it takes to get ideas through to kids, to make sure that they’re just meeting the mandated minimums? Clearly you don’t.
NO. Teachers have ENOUGH goddamn work to do without introducing some ridiculous, irrelevant bullshit like creationism just because some tyrannical idiots who want to interpret the Bible literally can get their own way. You wanna teach your kids that shit? Teach it to them at home, or in your church. But no, it does NOT belong in publics schools or in secular private schools.
“alot of the arguments against teaching creationism presented in this thread sound alot like the arguments that are constantly pummeled as naive/timid concerning whether or not sex ed should be taught. i.e., “it just isn’t right”, “they will find out on their own”, “i don’t want my kids exposed to that”, etc.”
Bullshit. Sexuality is a REAL thing. It EXISTS. We don’t even need scientific validation to tell us that. We all know the trappings of sexuality, and there’s a damn good argument that educating kids about it helps them to keep from getting into trouble with it in various ways.
But creationism is NOT real. It is an IDEA, and in fact an invalid one, propagated by a few people with fundamentalist, literalist notions of how the Bible should be interpreted, and their intent is to force it into the mainstream where it does not, patently, belong.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:18 am
F Mclure:
“Creationism is a theory, a faith-based theory yes, but still a theory, no more or less accurate than the Big Bang”
WRONG. There is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the Big Bang. It is FAR more accurate than creationism, which is nothing more than an attack on established science using distortion and lies. It *masquerades* as science when it is, in fact, NOTHING OF THE KIND. There is not ONE valid point made by creationism which stands the test of science, not one valid challenge that it makes against established science. It’s challenges are nothing more than distortions, half-truths or out-and-out lies.
The Big Bang theory is based on hard empirical data, gathered from multiple sources over the last 60+ years.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am
No, no and no. Creationism is a theory based on some person’s fantasy much like other pseudo-religions (Scientology). Evolution on the other hand is based on hard facts and studies.
It would be very interesting to ask creationists what they think of human evolution.
Unfortunately in the US, the roots of creationism have already taken hold and are meandering their way to positions of power.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Dischuker:
“isn’t it pretty obvious that, apart from the scientific arguments, that this is a war against christianity?”
Oh yes, boo hoo hoo, the tired old refrain we hear from fundamentalist christians every time they find their way to controlling the rest of us blocked by sense and rationality. It’s an “attack” on christianity.
Sorry, Disc, but that’s just bullshit. As I’ve already illustrated earlier, creationism is, in fact, an attack on science. But a rejection of it is not a rejection or attack on christianity—it is simply a recognition of the FACT that a religious dogma is NOT equivalent to an established science and should not therefore be taught alongside it as an alternative view. Science and religion are SEPARATE and should be kept separate because they have not ONE thing to do with one another. Every argument against creationism is based on this and has nothing to do with anyone “hating” or “attacking” christianity.
But what I DO have no patience for, myself, is when ONE group with an agenda to undermine science tries to force itself into the mainstream and onto the rest of us. Your freedom of religion is not impinged if you’re forced to keep your belief system at home because it is not relevant to the question being addressed at school.
“nobody says boo when we teach that the ancient egyptians mummified their leaders with their body parts, money and maps for the next world believing it would do some good. this is teaching of a religious belief and what it led people to do. we look at that and say “interesting”. it isn’t put through the same set of criteria that this current debate is.”
Do you REALLY think the two are equivalent? I don’t believe you do for a moment.
The practices of the ancient Egyptians, for one thing, were ubiquitous in their culture. They represented the belief system held by the vast majority of Egyptians and were an underpinning of their entire culture. Creationism is none of this. It is an idea held by a single minority group.
Moreover, the practices of the ancient Egyptians are NOT taught as an “alternative truth” to students. They are taught as HISTORY and nothing more. They are presented factually… “the Egyptians did this.” Creationism, on the other hand, is presented as a CHALLENGE to an established SCIENCE, not history.
“why? because nobody was threatened by these teachings. so then the question comes, why are people threatened by the teaching of this particular creation account?”
It isn’t a question of being THREATENED by anything, Dischuker—it’s a question, rather, as I said earlier, of validity. Creationism has none, and time should not be wasted on it.
But if you want to talk about threats, PLEASE. Egyptian history and Greek mythology are, again, NOT equivalent to creationism. AGAIN, yes, trying to force an agenda-driven “alternative truth” against science IS a threat in a very real way… a threat to rationality and reason.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
randall: why should we waste time on it? because it is obviously a big deal in american culture and you know that when evoultion is taught, it leads to discussions such as these in classrooms because the schools are populated with people, possibly a great majority who believe creation to be a true account. to say that it is a waste of time gives no creedance to the reality of the fight that WILL happen everytime either of these is taught in american public schools for the foreseeable future. to simply dismiss one, either one, will cause problems that can be avoided by discussing them openly.
i wasn’t saying that sexuality wasn’t real. i was saying that the arguments from fear of what might happen if creationism is taught are reminiscent of the same fear saying that sex ed shouldn’t be taught.
“But creationism is NOT real. It is an IDEA, and in fact an invalid one, propagated by a few people with fundamentalist, literalist notions of how the Bible should be interpreted, and their intent is to force it into the mainstream where it does not, patently, belong.”
to qualify those people that believe in creationism as “few” is just not accurate. secondly, i would say that the creationism side isn’t trying to “force it into the mainstream” they are trying to “keep” it where it has been until the last 100-150 years.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:10 am
No! Why should it be thought? It’s wrong, with evidence to say so, no, no, no!
September 16th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I’m cutting in again with a further thought or two that occurred to me, and hoping they haven’t been covered already. I’ve just got too much on right now to read everything AND post! Sorry.
The problem here is surely the titular word *teach* (or *should be taught*). If it had been written as *referred to*, or *included in* certain subjects of curricula (and perhaps always informally), fine. For example, it seems to me it would be almost impossible to teach evolution without curious, intelligent kids raising the differences between the religious (based on belief) and strictly scientific view (based on factual evidence, hypothesis and theory) of the subject. The teacher could of course tell them to shut up and stick to the pure science, but that would hardly signify a *good* teacher.
Higher up these postings, someone made the gross (grotesque) simplification that there are two possibilities: God created us and everything. Or the scientific view: there was nothing and out of that came a cosmic accident which resulted in us and everything. We regularly discussed this sort of discord in upper school, regardless of whether we studied science or humanities. Of course, out of that comes the awareness that the religious are left with as much or more explaining to do, and as many questions to answer as the scientists. Neither *side* has an explanation, so we might as well fall back on Douglas Adams!
All the following are old chestnuts, of course, but schoolkid fodder none the less. It usually begins with: Who made God? So if God is eternal, without beginning or end, what was He doing throughout the infinite period *before* the present few billion years from the Big Bang onwards (accepting science)? Hibernating? Dreaming? Twiddling His thumbs? And if God is eternal, why not the Universe too? If a relationship with Man’s immortal soul is God’s focus, how does that account for the vastness of space-time and the fact that we’ve only been around for a few million years (accepting science!), and have only been made aware of Him directly for a couple of thousand or so? That is scarcely a temporal-spatial blink, even in the context of our present minute knowledge.
As for science, evolution isn’t an answer to the mysteries of the Universe, or even the Mystery of Life. It is just an extremely logical and convincing explanation to make sense of observed facts in hand. The scientific process is to ask what lies sequentially behind any given phenomenon. To a degree that happens with religion, but when no further answers are possible, the stop point there is God. That is the full and satisfying answer or a cop out, depending on your perception.
I understand mathematicians have now claimed that it is theoretically possible for something to be created out of nothing. If so, that is the sole basis for supposing there might have been *nothing* one moment and *everything* the next. It is scarcely a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and still further from a generally held scientific tenet. We do not even know (yet)whether life itself is accidential or obligatory, whether it is limited solely to our planet or widespread in space, and whether it originated here or arrived as *space seed*. A present broad consensus would probably suppose it was obligatory, widespread and our own version arose on Earth (hypotheses).
Finally, evolution cannot be taught outside its historical context. That means Darwin, Hooker, Wallace et al. and their constant clashes with the creationists of the time, as well as the prevailing social religious current. The apogee was the famous ‘Monkey Debate’ with Bishop ‘Soapy Sam’ Wilberforce!
September 16th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Perhaps I should have added that I personally have no vision of a personal deity with a particular interest in me. Sorry, but I find that quite absurd. On the other hand I don’t discount the possibility of an integrated cosmic *intelligence*. Call that intelligence God, or not, as you will.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
yes a theory is a theory it is not fact. all things should be taught and let people make up their own minds. why should one be able to teach one thing and not another. i for one will not tell you what to believe i will show both sides of an arguement then let some one decide for themselves. we do people a great disservice when we only teach one thing/idea. people still believe Christopher columbus founded america. well we know for a fact that isn’t true but does any body know for sure who came first to america.??? there where people here as early as 1088, 400 years before columbus. but we still have a columbus day here in the united states in october. the truth will be known one day.
evolution is taught in some christian schools that i know of they let the children choose for themselves.
history repeats itself because each generation gets caught up in its own self and what is important to them at the time instead of teaching great principles to our children and how we should treat one another.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
This entire argument hinges on whether you understand what science is. This sounds blindingly obvious, but you would be suprised at how many people have an incorrect impression of what it actually is and does.
Science aims to increase knowledge. However, more importantly than that; it aims to increase knowledge in a very specific way. Using ‘the scientific method’.
There are many different ways of increasing our knowledge. Philosophers experiment and work problems out in their mind for example, not a test tube in sight. For matters of morality or existence, this is an appropriate way of obtaining such knowledge.
The scientific method is very different and very specific. It is a very regulated way of doing things. Nothing can be assumed. Anything you claim has to have empirical evidence behind it. Empirical, by definition, is something that is based on “experimental data, NOT a theory”.
Even then, once you have your data, it is subject to thousands of other scientist’s scrutiny. Each scientist equally determined to make sure that you’ve made no mistakes in your calculations and everything was done in a proper, step-by-step, way.
Once you understand this, you can understand why Creationism is not a science. Sure, it has an opinion on how life came to be as it is, the same as evolution does – but that is where the similarity stops.
Since the ideas behind Creationism come from one single source – The Bible, not for empirical data, it isn’t a science. By defintion.
To repeat, even if you assume that Creationism is correct. Even if you assume that every scientific idea is wrong. Since Creationism doesn’t involve the scientific method, it isn’t science. No more than it is a type of music, or a type of engineering.
If you want to teach it in schools, be my guest.. but keep it in religious education lessons. Where, by definition, it belongs.
If you start putting things in categories where they don’t belong, you might as well start teaching politics in maths lessons.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:17 am
how do you explain thousands of marine fossils found above sea level throughout the world in places like the Himalayas? World wide flood or……? Please don’t insult me or be a dick in general. Just give me your thoughts….I’m not saying I believe it but I just asking about stuff that I have heard and want to know what people think. A lot of people say there is no evidence but then I hear about evidence and I just want to know how these same people would explain the same facts.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Courtney,
I apologize for my late reply. Ironically enough, I’m from The Holy Land
September 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Dischuker:
“why should we waste time on it? because it is obviously a big deal in american culture”
So are a LOT of things that are NOT taught in schools, Disc. Come on. This argument of yours is entirely specious. The point is, why should we waste valuable SCIENCE TEACHING time and resource on an utterly UNSCIENTIFIC piece of religious dogma. Again–talk about it at home or in your church. School is not the place for it.
“and you know that when evoultion is taught, it leads to discussions such as these in classrooms”
Not where I went to school; I recall no such discussions. But of course, I grew up in New York, not some Lil’Abner state populated with Jesus freaks. Thank god.
“because the schools are populated with people, possibly a great majority who believe creation to be a true account.”
And your point? There are teachers right now dealing with this very issue, in places like Florida and elsewhere, where creationism is not taught in schools, but they have to deal with numbers of students who have been taught it at home. How do the teachers cope with the issue and the discussions? NOT by teaching creationism. They cope with it by educating the students on evolution—as they should be and as is appropriate—and by trying to show them that evolution does NOT negate their faith and belief system. Period. There’s no need to “teach” creationism as some kind of alternative. It would be a *waste* of time to do so, and would be *wrong.*
The problem here is not evolutionary biology and the teaching of it. The problem is with narrow-minded, foolish people who have no real understanding of evolution, but simply react to it. And the problem is that such people believe–wrongly–that evolutionary biology and science in general somehow negate and/or challenge their faith. It’s absurd. The way to educate these people is NOT to give an “equal voice” to the idiocy of creationism, but to EDUCATE them (the job of teachers) in evolutionary biology so that they learn that is poses no threat to their faith.
It’s up to them if they want to adapt their belief system so that it stops denying evolution. But if you want to talk about FEAR, Dischuker–that is the real motivator here. It is FEAR of science that is the root issue here. Narrow-minded people fearing science because they stupidly believe it negates their god and faith… so they try to undermine it and assail it. That is REALLY what’s going on here.
The funny thing is, I was brought up believing in the SAME EXACT CHRISTIAN GOD as they, but *I* was NEVER taught that science negated him. RATHER, I was taught that science is a way to UNDERSTAND him and his plan.
“i wasn’t saying that sexuality wasn’t real. i was saying that the arguments from fear of what might happen if creationism is taught are reminiscent of the same fear saying that sex ed shouldn’t be taught.”
And again, my point still stands. The two are NOT equivalent and your argument in this regard does NOT hold water. The fear of sex education is wrong, (if one so believes, as I do) because sexuality is a real fact of biological life that must be faced and understood if one is to exercise proper use of it and exercise proper, well-managed restraint as well.
Creationism, however, is NOT a fact or reality. And the exclusion of it from science teaching, therefore, is NOT “fear-based” but is rather based in a proper understanding of what IS science and what ISN’T. But the opposition of it is also based in the understanding that creationism is an underhanded attempt by some to influence unduly the progress of civilization generally; to retard it and even roll it back.
“to qualify those people that believe in creationism as “few” is just not accurate.”
Bullshit it isn’t. They are in the minority in this country despite all their harping and pushing. Were they not, they’d have their way from coast to coast.
“secondly, i would say that the creationism side isn’t trying to “force it into the mainstream” they are trying to “keep” it where it has been until the last 100-150 years.”
MORE bullshit. So… by your logic (your argument here isn’t even valid) because electricity was unknown until about 200 years ago, we should still teach an alternative science where electricity doesn’t exist? Because we didn’t know the nature of the atom until only 100 years ago or so, we should still teach an alternative physics which doesn’t include the atom?
But no, Dischuker–creationism is a NEW phenomenon.. it did not “exist” prior to 150 years ago. Rather, science had not yet developed fully the empirical data and theories of evolutionary biology—but that did NOT mean that up until Darwin creationism was taught in schools. RATHER, the genesis of life and its progressions were simply not taught systematically in the sciences, or taught only peripherally, because until Darwin such questions were only marginally addressed and understood. You’re trying to ascribe to the pre-Darwin period of time a state of affairs that did not, in fact, exist. What people believed and were told in church or at home is another matter. But when SCIENCE learned new facts and had data to fully support it’s ideas, then those ideas WERE taught. That is the way it has always been.
Creationism is simply an attempt to subvert and undermine that system, to roll us back NOT to the pre-Darwin 1800s, but rather to the pre-rational dark ages.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
dischuker: Not where I live has any sort of religious teaching been mainstream. You want religious teaching; you go to a religious school. Not one funded by my tax dollars thank you very much. And not for at least 60 years.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Yes…Darwinism is a “theory.” The question I have is that if we are in a constant state of evolution, where are the tens of thousands of partially-evolved humans that should be evident everywhere ? Perhaps in the Democratic Party, but, in reality, apple trees produce apples, gorillas reproduce gorillas, apes give birth to apes, and humans bear humans. It’s so simple it defies description how people try to complicate it.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I say yes, it should be taught. Learning how other people view the world is a good thing; it can expand your mind and our world view. It helps us understand each other, it may help us become more tolerant of each other. When I was in high school (I graduated in 99), we learned about Islam in Sociology. Having a basis of that knowledge has been valuable, and I am glad to have learned it.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Natural history was mainly in the hands of the religious at the time of Darwin and for a long while prior to that (monks, including herbalists, and the like). It is interesting to read how they struggled to accomodate the ever-increasing accumulation of marine fossils and chunks of giant *monsters* being dug out of mines within their particular religious concepts. Of course they disagreed amongst themselves, just as modern religionists do, about the time the world was created, etc. But the most useful *peg* for them to hang these phenomena on for a long while was Noah’s Flood. It was, in fact, geologists who finally torpedoed that as a worldwide catastrophic event.
Even so, until very recently otherwise extremely intelligent people have been looking for (and finding!) the ark on Ararat. That despite certain blindingly obvious facts. (1) there isn’t enough water on the entire planet to reach the foot of Ararat. (2) Any tsunami massive enough to deposit a wooden vessel high on the volcano would have smashed it to atoms. And (3) Ararat did not *become* a giant volcano, let alone an extinct one, during the period that man had developed the capacity to build boats. And even if it had, the remains of an ancient wooden artifact could not possibly have withstood being lifted intact on its outer slopes for some several thousand metres of altitude during its formation.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“Peter” writes: “I belive that this swing toward creatioism is symtomtic of a general dumming down in our world culture, it is easier not to ask the hard questions, the last time this kind of aceptance of folk lore was adopted it lead to a 500 year dark ages where people were being burnt at the stake for their ideas and I would not have to rely on our uninformed youth to ignite a new renaisance.” Peter, perhaps we should organize a telethon for your benefit. This is a joke, right ?
September 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
MDWhite, (267),
“It’s so simple it defies description how people try to complicate it.”
So, you gorillas were just plonked on the earth ready-made. That’s it? Good well, if that satisfies you …
Seriously, read ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ and come back with your question again later if you haven’t understood how Dawkins has carefully answered your objection there.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
What about the RATE research project? This was conducted by 7 Scientists all with PHD’s. They spent eight years researching the dating methods used to date the earth at 4.7 billion years and supposedly showed it to be flawed and not true as well as finding evidence for a young earth. Again, I’m not saying I believe it. I haven’t read about there finding which are published and available to read online and download but the fact that 7 heavily credentialed scientists believe in creationism really makes me wonder if you guys know what you are talking about when you say “there is no evidence”. Wouldn’t you conclude that they know something you don’t. I’m confused about this!!
These are the 7 scientists and there credentials. There were 8 total, the last was an expert in Biblical Hebrew.
Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (ICR) He has a B.S. in Physics from the U. of Missouri at Rolla, a B.S. in Meteorology from St. Louis University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLA.
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics (ICR) He has a B.S. in Physics from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University.
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR) He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney.
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR) He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University.
Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR) He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics from Michigan Technological University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa State University.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Oh dear, some typo. I’d better get that corrected to *your gorillas* or I’ll have the whole ad hominem thing down on my head with a vengeance!!!
September 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Alfie:
Have you ever heard anything about plate tectonics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Is always a plesure to teach those how have miss an education thanks to religious blind faith. Ask whatever you want, I understand your situation (is not that different from the rest how deffend creationism).
September 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Alfie, (272),
And not a biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist, among the lot of them.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“The RATE project (a joint research initiative between the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society)”
nothing else to say. It will be also a plesure to read it. I think I will laugh so much XD
September 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
i’m not going so far to say that evolution as the means by which God created couldn’t be true. what i reject about evolution is the all-encompassing Theory that takes a philosophical naturalism approach to the world.
some balance must be sought. the other side can’t all be naive/simple/blind folks.
to quote stephen gould the noted harvard evoltionist and atheist, “either half my colleagures are enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional relgiious beliefs-and equally compatible with atheism.”
pure physical science cannot do full justice to the reality of the human experience.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
JB at #276 so if it said “the RATE project (a joint research initiative between the Institute of Evoltion Research and the Evolution Research Society)” you would trust it more?
September 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
dischuker, (277),
The ancient Greeks had a belief system which nobody subscribes to today. That does not negate their magnificent intellectual achievements in so many other areas. A Catholic has written in our newspaper that equally intelligent people may believe in God or be atheists. One of them has got to be completely wrong, despite their intellectual equality elsewhere. I would add they might even both be completely wrong.
Conan Doyle believed in the fake photographs of fairies he was shown by two ladies. Does that make him too stupid to be a fine author?
This thread of intellectual and conceptual inconsistency in human beings goes on and on.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Alfie:
The RATE project was sponsored by and populated with (to my understanding) committed creationists, and is therefore biased and invalid. Go to this site here, Alfie:
http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_index.htm
RATE was a house of cards and the ideas around it have been debunked. It produced no useful data that even remotely challenged established science.
Period.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Dischuker:
“i’m not going so far to say that evolution as the means by which God created couldn’t be true. what i reject about evolution is the all-encompassing Theory that takes a philosophical naturalism approach to the world.”
Dischuker, I’ve got news for you. YOU ARE NOT A FREAKIN’ BIOLOGIST. What you accept and do not accept, then, in regards to the science, is irrelevant. And in fact, if I were you, I’d be asking myself who the hell I think I am to say that I “reject” a piece of well-established science such as this.
“some balance must be sought. the other side can’t all be naive/simple/blind folks.”
YES IT CAN, and in fact it almost entirely IS.
I don’t know what your problem with this is. The TRUTH is that creationism is the work of and propounded by almost exclusively people who are NOT themselves biologists–and in fact mostly are uneducated, rigid-minded fundamentalist twits.
“pure physical science cannot do full justice to the reality of the human experience.”
NOBODY SAYS IT CAN, Dischuker. But that ISN’T the point here.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Individuals such as Alfie must not be misled by the fact that just because a few vocal scientists with credentials even give creationism a thought, it does not mean it is mainstream. Afterall, just because a few Catholic priests molest children does not mean all Catholic priests molest children.
On websites such as the Discovery Insititute they boast a list of 700 scientists who endorse wholesale or the investigation of creationism. In response, the National Science Foundation began a “steve list” where they invited scientists with PhDs named “steve” to sign a petition that creationism is bull. Now they have over 1300 names.
Similarly, still a few religious people believe the earth is flat. Same sort of thing,
September 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
OK.
Some of you seem to think that Christians are sheep following some shepard, not letting them speak for themselves. I assure you this is not true. I go to a very conservative church, but I am more liberal than anything. I am allowed to have my own oppinion, and so are kids in school. Personally, whay cant we teach creation AND evolution, plus any other theory about how our world was created. Then let the kids CHOOSE what they want to beleive in.
Is that so bad?
September 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Because, Bananas, creationism is not a science. End of story.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Dischuker makes me laugh. His fascinatingly imbecilic and simplistic arguments are at once inane, horrifying that anyone could approach such a level of stupidity, and highly entertaining. It would be akin to me giving an opinion on how best to build a skyscraper that is 200 stories high (as I am a scientist, and not an architect). Exactly, I should have no opinion and listen to the experts (the real architects).
What’s more, Dischuker insists that though he knows nothing his opinion should be taught to the future generations of America. Now, that is not laughable but criminal.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
randall: what do you currently accept that will be laughed at 100 years from now? what do you denounce as foolish that was the mainstream 100 years ago?
so, if the other side is full of fools, what do you say to someone like gould?
why such vitriol? i am not asking you to accept anything promulgated by creationists. i am asking you to entertain the possibility that what you currently believe as unassailable might have holes.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
278. dischuker:
No. Of course it would be the same, but is not the case.
This kind of institutions only exist for those pseudosciences unable to find scientists supporting their believes.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
anne: (cute name btw) i don’t know if you have noticed yet but this is an internet discussion board. if we are to retreat and only speak to the things that we are specifically schooled in, this would be quite the dull board. i couldn’t address music, movies, literature, shakespearean misquotes, fascinating twins or ways that the internet has changed the upcoming election.
surely you don’t suggest that we all need higher schooling in order to speak.
if you do, i guess send the authorities so that i can be incarcerated for my criminal behavior, as you suggest.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
JB: so if a scientist is trying to run the creation hypothesis through the scientific method is he wading the waters of pseudoscience? i have no idea what that research team believes or supports. but you must concede that they are searching for scientific support, as that is all their opponents would accept.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Dischuker:
“i am asking you to entertain the possibility that what you currently believe as unassailable might have holes.”
How about you do that about your religion, Disc?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Yes I know about plate tectonics and I didn’t “miss an education thanks to religious blind faith”. I received a normal, evolution centered education and I’m not religious but I don’t just accept things because I’m told too, I question everything. I have just always heard people say there is absolutely no evidence for creationism but then when I go and look for myself just to see if it’s true then I start finding things. I don’t want you JUST tell me it’s not true or that they are idiots or that it’s biased…tell me why, if you don’t know that’s fine, I’m sure there’s a reason I missed and that it’s all baloney. I’m not blindly accepting evolution just like I’m not blindly accepting some religious myth. I just want to know for myself? Obviously there is a lot of evidence for evolution, right? And if there is NO evidence for creationism why is it discussed? There isn’t a debate for including any other creation myths in science class in any other part of the world so why the Christian one? That’s why I’m confused, if it’s so clear cut and obvious than why would 7 guys who spent millions of dollars on an education waste that education and 8 years of there life on something that is completely mythical? Am I an idiot for asking questions like this?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
absolutely, the Bible gives such a ground. the apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:19 “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”
when speaking about the resurrection of Christ he lays it down as the foundational belief. if Christ did not bodily raise from the dead, he wasn’t God, did not conquer death, offers no hope for his followers and was an outright liar.
are you open to falsifiability as well?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@289. dischuker:
“if a scientist is trying to run the creation hypothesis through the scientific method is he wading the waters of pseudoscience?”
FAIL
They aren’t using the scientific method. They want you to believe they’re doing so, but they can’t deceive the scientific community. That’s why they doesn’t find any scientific support. It’s not any kind of conspiracy against creationism but a needed control to not make wrongful use of the name of the Science (what actually christianity have been unable to do with God).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
you’ll find here the tricks creatinism is using and how well it fits to the definition of pseudoscience.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
wow, I thought you liberals were suppose to be sooo open minded. I don’t think evolution should be taught in public school. It is a THEORY and does not represent alot of peoples beliefs. I don’t think creationism should be taught in public schools either, leave it to the parents.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Evolution=SCIENTIFIC FACT
Creationism=FAIRY TALE
September 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
there has to be some middle ground. to many creationism is not sufficient to explain the science of the origin of the species. to many evolution is not sufficient to explain the realities of the rest of life.
we can’t all be wrong, can we?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
@291. Alfie:
No. You’re not an idiot, just innocent.
You did a question as someone that doesn’t know anything about plate tectonics, that’s why I was teaching you that.
I’ve already said why those 7 “scientists” aren’t actually acting as scientist.
What’s up with creationism debate? It doesn’t need any evidences to make people believe in and discuss about it. Is faith, not science. They’ve grown inside a bubble where the Bible was the truth and they’re afraid to be wrong, because they will have to fit all the trascendent questions wich answers were imposed by faith. I understand why the’re discussing taht even without any kind of evidences.
All creationist arguments are: “I don’t understand that, so it must be God’s will”. That’s a destrutive argument because is denying the posibility to wonder what reallity is hidden behind. Not creating any positive way to progress. What they want is to stop research in any way not help to understand better the world. Scientific research is uncovering all the lies of religion.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Dan: Your right.
evolution is a theory. Yet they teach it anyway. ( they do at my school). So is creation. Why should we teach one and not the other?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
And why are people saying the evolution is theory like it’s a bad thing?!? Isn’t a theory something that has been tested and retested and holds water?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The “theory” of evolution is a bit understated. The fact that evolutions exists in many different species has been proven. But to my understanding, human evolution has some details which have not been able to be proven beyond all doubt by science, yet. The scientific community would not accept an idea such as human evolution if it was not already subject to extensive research and testing. A theory is not just some crazy idea some guy made up and told us all to believe.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Are you talking about my world wide flood question? That marine fossils found above sea level were found there because the shifting of tectonic plates and not because of a world wide flood? I thought about that but i didn’t know if the Himalayas and the Grand Canyon were once submerged in the ocean or not. At least during the period when those sea creatures existed. That is a good explanation but is that the case? I mean if research was done would we find that not only were the Himalayas once submerged in the ocean but it was during the time that all of those sea creatures existed and the age of the Himalayas fits the time period of the existence of those creatures?
“All creationist arguments are: “I don’t understand that, so it must be God’s will.”
That’s all of their arguments? I haven’t heard that one yet…and trust me I’m looking, I’ve read a lot of BS but some stuff that really makes me think but so far it hasn’t been “I don’t understand that, so it must be God’s will.”
I guess I just don’t know if ALL creationists are the same and that there is NO science to creationism and that everyone who buys into creationism grew up being taught to believe it….because I’ve even found instances where that isn’t true.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
sorry to be off topic, but I must say I am impressed (somewhat) with the arguments on both sides of the story, and great idea for who ever made/suggested this “Your View” topic.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
No it should not plain and simple, it is not based in science and separation of church and state should be upheld, no religion in schools or all of them.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Jb has recommended that the following link should be proof that the earth is 4.7 billion years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
However if the earth’s crust is sub ducting into the mantle at the rate of 100mm per year and the earth has a circumference of 25,000km the whole surface would sub duct and be renewed every 25 million years, with this happening at the interface of 14 plates the renewal would be every 1.7 million years.
As the extinction of the dinosaurs is purported to have happened 65 million years ago these two scientific theories don’t add up.
The evolutionists should be less fundamentalist and try to open their minds rather than accept the current sci-fi dogma that will be discounted in a few years time.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
dischuker, (288),
“…what do you denounce as foolish that was the mainstream 100 years ago?”
Nothing will be denounced as foolish or be laughed that was soundly based on the best evidence available at the time, be it 1000 years ago or 10 minutes ago. It will be derided, however, if it flew in the face of that better evidence by refusing to accept or denying it. Hence we do not mock the ancients for beieving the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. We do rightly roll around the aisles, though, if somebody insists on that today.
GUS1965, (304),
Do we, do you, know the crust has always subducted at a constant rate? I certainly don’t know. Just asking, because if you or nobody else doesn’t know, then your assumption isn’t valid.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
joseph campbell put it best when he stated that religous doctrine should never be interpreted as fact but as a metaphor towards living a better life. As such these metaphors overlap within all religons teaching the same lessons through differing stories. For instance the ritualisation of easter is not so much about jesus dying and being reborn, as it is a lesson in the need to adapt to change. In life there will be times when you must allow your old self to “die” and be reborn again as something new. This was true of the pagan rite of oestre that christianity grafted easter too and also existed in greek myth with the death and rebirth of adonis. and so on. There is a basic spiritual need in all of humanity to believe in something greater then yourself but unfortunatly this has been hijacked by those who will only accept religous dogma as fact. So creationism should be taught as a belief that exists alongside evolution and that can also be adapted to evolution, but we also need teachers like Campbell to teach how religon functions and why blind faith must always be questioned.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
chris, (306),
Perhaps the only main group of people to disagree with you will be those millions and millions who live by belief and blind faith.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
305. Anon…GUS1965, (304),Do we, do you, know the crust has always subducted at a constant rate? I certainly don’t know. Just asking, because if you or nobody else doesn’t know, then your assumption isn’t valid.
****
I don’t know either, but I do live in an area where the Pacific plate meets the North American plate. A long, long stretch of it is on view. One thing that is quite obvious is that is that it didn’t all move at the same rate. You can look at it and see the evidence.
I walk by parts of it every day. I see greater parts of it every time I go the 1/4 mile to the beach.
It’s fascinating. I wish we could post photos, my camera is due back from repair any day (it was sent Thursday), because I could post pix of the plates, and what they’re doing.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I believe that schools should stay off of the subject of evolution, creationism, ect. Until high school where students should have the OPTION to learn about different religions or the scientific explanation. Faith is a major part is some peoples lives so they shouldn’t be forced to listen to anything that would challenge their beliefs but at the same time they should have the option to.
Mostly so they don’t have something thrown into their face but so they can explore and pick out what they believe as an individual.
Oh, and yeah, Obama 08
September 16th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I agree with jfrater on this; it should be taught in school, but only in classes like sociology and religious education. Science class is for science ,so why should religion play a part in it?
September 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Absolutely NOT! Creationism is a load of utter BULLSHIT and should be avoided at all costs!
If the creationists get their way, the Scientologists will want their way next!
It is about time for religion to be put in a museum and looked at with faint scorn, if looked at all…
Creationism has no place in education, and nor does religion!
September 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I concede that creationism has a place in education, when limited only to religion or sociology classes.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Interesting question. A similar one came up in school just a few days ago because we’re studying the origins of Judaism in our World History class and we’re getting a lot of our information from the Torah. As a class we agreed that it’s okay to teach the history as long as nobody is trying to preach religion to each other. I’m Jewish, but I prefer to call myself an atheist because I don’t buy in to God. Also, I go to a public school.
I always get wary about this stuff. I think the story of creationism is interesting and they should tell it to us so that we know it exists, but they cross the line when they try to feed it to us as fact. I think I would start cutting class if they tried to teach it to us in science.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Yes, we should teach Christian creationism in school. Right where it belongs: in a survey of religions course. The cosmogenies of all major world religions should be discussed in turn. A particular idea shall not be given precedence, and none of the ideas should be asserted as fact.
It is not science, nor is it a scientific theory. Therefore, it does not belong in a science class. However, I do feel schools should do a better job at teaching evolutionary theory, because I feel like most people here that are for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution don’t have clue what evolution is, how it proceeds, or what support is offered for it.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Most important is: readin’, ritin’ n rithmetic. Leave religion for Sunday (or Saturday)
September 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
This response is written assuming that by “creationism,” one means the belief that the events of Genesis 1 are factual and exact. (I believe in God, but I am of those too small to fathom the cause of the beginning of the world.)
Education is about gaining knowledge. For aeons, people have come up with explanations of how things came to be. In science class, students learn current theories and ideas about the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Current scientific consensus is (generally) that the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are probably valid.
My grandfather was taught in school that dinosaurs possibly existed, but they probably didn’t.
Our knowledge of the world is constantly changing.
An all-powerful being creating the world in six days seemed a good explanation to ancient occupants of the earth. This is History, but it is also Religion, because it begins the Jewish and Christian holy books.
Maybe we should allow the idea that perhaps there is a Being greater than ourselves to be proposed in schools (of course, alongside the idea that there is not a Being greater than ourselves, or that It died, or that It is actually many Its).
Christianity and Judaism (to the completely unbiased individual) are simply two of the ideologies that have shaped the human past. Why we should seek to omit all mention of them from our schools, I do not know.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Also, it would be arrogant to assume that our current set of truths are absolute.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I always knew my biology teacher was full of shit for teaching two theories of the origin of life. Every kid who came out of his class is now a stark raving insane fundamentalist preaching the wages of sin.
Oops, forgot my dad taught biology at my high school.
I believe they shouldn’t teach algebra. I think we can all agree that subject was a complete waste of time and a giant load of crap. A squared times B squared equals nap time. Algebra has never contributed anything of substance to anyone’s life, this I know and will fight anyone who says different.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Alfie:
Read my previous post about the NSF’s steve list and the list of scientists online supporting creationism…
Dischuker:
Again you miss the point my dear. You have every right to an opinion. However, your opinion has no meaning or value except to yourself, as you are uninformed about the topic at hand. Evolution is not an easy topic to understand. I’m not sure you even know what science is, or scientific theory. Perhaps you should attempt to educate yourself before forming a tedious opinion and inflicting it on others, hmm?
September 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Shelby m:
“My grandfather was taught in school that dinosaurs possibly existed…” How old exactly was your grandfather?
“An all-powerful being creating the world in six days seemed a good explanation to ancient occupants of the earth. This is History, but it is also Religion, because it begins the Jewish and Christian holy books.”
Wrong. It is firstly not history (which should not be capitalized fyi); on the contrary it is a historical creation story. Story, not history.
Secondly, how does that seem like a good explanation to you (the six day story) when there are tomes of evidence that seem to imply a different origin of the earth and universe?
If you do really feel it to be a good story, by all means include it into history or social studies classes. I’m afraid you are mistaken as to what science really is.
I can see you are attempting to be very deep (i.e. ” For aeons, people have come up with explanations of how things came to be.”) but this is about scientific endeavor, and how religion is trying to masquerade as science.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
It all depends upon what you mean by “taught in schools?”
If you mean as an “alternative scientific theory,” then the answer is clearly NO. Creationism is not science as science is defined. Evolution is the sole accepted “scientific theory.”
If you mean taught as a fact of society that not everyone, for religious reasons, accepts the Theory of Evolution such as in a comtemporary Socialogy class, then I see no issue with that.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
What I WOULD like is for teachers to be honest about the shortcomings in the theory of evolution (i.e. “Darwin’s Black Box,” the mathematical impossibilities), be clear about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and just be honest that maybe scientists don’t have all the answers on this yet. In my public high school, I did an independent study on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory, and it drove me to creationism. Also, when students would bring up creationism and ID during biology class, my high school biology teacher welcomed the talk. I honestly don’t know if he was an evolutionist or creationist, but he valued open conversation about the topic. When the students bring it up, it should be discussed, whatever class. Parents can always teach more about creationism at home, too.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
“easter is not so much about jesus dying and being reborn, as it is a lesson in the need to adapt to change.”
I have a feeling you don’t know nearly as much about Christianity as you think you do, my friend. But the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross and was resurrected and that action literally paid the price required by all the sins of the world, is whole point of Christianity. Without it…the rest of it doesn’t matter. Ya you can hold the belief in creationism steadfast. You can follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of your ability, and go to church every single Sunday but your own righteousness ultimately will not matter once you die.
There are metaphors in the Bible, but truth is….if the Bible is really going to mean anything deeper than what you get from a self help book, the interpretation has to be literal. Just so you know….the real Christians won’t buy your metaphor crap…maybe others will.
I don’t know if you care or it this comment fits in this discussion but I felt like saying something.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Someone mentioned the word “falsiable”. For some scientists, the test of a theory is not whether it can be proved true, but whether it can be proved false. Creationism simply cannot be proved false. Evolution can. JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins both stated that evolution can quite simply be proved false by the discovery of a pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil.
I have to “come out” as a thinking Christian with an open mind and a sense of humour, if you allow that such a creature exists. I believe that God created the world. I believe that God did that in a scientific way. I believe that the first two chapters of Genesis speak spiritual truth, not scientific truth. I believe that God is “bigger” than any scientific truth.
(I hope that my previous comments on this site will support my claim to be “thinking”, to have and “open mind and a sense of humour”. I struggle with Christian belief. I doubt, therefore I am. I don’t understand how anyone can have such a simple faith as some people seem to display. I also believe that, while I am so imperfect, I have no right to shove my beliefs down anyone else’s throat. I’ll discuss with you if you want to, but I won’t preach. (Hopefully not.))
September 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
steffie:
perhaps you never read the preface to your science texts, but the entire point of science is admitting we’ll probably never know everything, and that scientists try to find a paradigm that works. But just because science doesn’t know everything does not mean it is wrong. Just the opposite; in science if something is misproved once then it is discarded or amended, and scientific theories that are thought to be “right” like gravity can still be proven wrong. Just because we don’t know everything does not we are wrong about everything. Got it?
RideTheLightning:
Your beliefs seem adequate to your purposes but this posting is about how science cannot be invaded by your beliefs. Because if they are beliefs, then they are not science. Science is fat.
Astraya:
I applaud you for being a soul of faith and moderation. Thank God someone with some grains of sense.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
sorry typo: Science is fact, not fat…
September 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Randall:
Perhaps it would be best to not actually “yell” at the imbeciles. Then they seem to think that they are actually making a point, or have a valid opinion if you debate it so heatedly. It’s probably better to instruct rather than engage in heated duels, as it would not be appropriate for uninformed idiots to rise above themselves or fool themselves into thinking that they know what they are talking about.
But of course, you seem to dislike advice on your debating style, so please ignore me if you would like.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
RideTheLightning: Yes–absolutely right on with your point about Easter. To me, Xianity is meaningless and a sham if the resurrection isn’t literally true. In the context of the creationism issue, whether one believes in literal creation or not doesn’t matter when it comes to salvation–the confession of Jesus as savior is paramount. Although for me personally, my faith is rooted in a literal understanding of creation.
Anne: yes, I know that (though I admit I never read the preface of my high school textbooks!). That is not the attitude I usually encounter when the issue is evolution, though. The attitude I usually find is, “We know evolution is the answer, and if it’s not, well, the answer certainly isn’t creationism or ID.”
Astraya: well said.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
creationism stay out of school because their are so many forms of the creation theory, and if the christian theory comes in then people will want the hindu, or islamic, or scientologic forms taught as well creationism in any form should be taught at and only at home and not at any class in school. additionally i believe that anyone that does believe in a creation theory should not be allowed to argue in any science or history class, when i went to high school this one kid would argue for the whole class with the instructor, in any class that even slightly contradicted his ideals
September 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Yes, Creationism should be taught. Why wouldn’t it be? If there is more than one “theory” then why wouldn’t it be taught?
September 16th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Matt: Because, as has been said many times already, creationism is not a *scientific* theory. There is an explicit difference between how you conceive a “theory” and how science conceives a theory. A scientific theory is a framework of axioms that work in conjunction to produce testable and falsifiable predictions. Creationism is not a framework of axioms; it is, instead, a single axiom, namely “God created the world and all the creatures in it in the forms by which they now appear.” This axiom cannot itself produce testable predictions, the confirmation of which can lend support back to the axiom. Furthermore, even if it could produce testable hypotheses, it cannot produce any falsifiable predictions, because any result can be integrated someway into the axiom, rather than properly interpreted as either strengthening or weakening the axiom. Creationism is, therefore, not science, and cannot be presented as an alternative to a scientific concept, in this case evolution.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
The above post was directed at “Maff, #330,” not “Matt.”
September 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
May I again suggest for any who struggle to understand evolution that you read ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins). It points out that evolution is perfectly logical, while the instant creation of large and complex organisms is not. It explains how evolution works in tiny stages which add up eventually to major changes. It confronts and answers all objections that are being expressed here.
If you cannot be bothered and don’t accept that something organic can change dramatically in form over a few hundred thousand or even million years, then think about something that does just that physically over the course of 70-80 years or so, from its very conception to its end, from micro to macro. It’s called YOU.
By the way, my literary suggestion is to improve your understanding, not to change your belief. Also, if you shy away from reading Dawkins, as some believers do, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“What I WOULD like is for teachers to be honest about the shortcomings in the theory of evolution (i.e. “Darwin’s Black Box,” the mathematical impossibilities), be clear about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and just be honest that maybe scientists don’t have all the answers on this yet.”
I agree that the shortcomings of evolution should be presented in a more accessible way. However, firstly, the concept of irreducible complexity you cite (Behe’s work “Darwin’s Black Box”) has been soundly refuted in the academic texts and is considered a non-issue. Furthermore, a discussion of the “mathematical impossibilities” you describe is both disingenuous and a mischaracterization. Any speculations made about the probabilities involved in the chance of life progressing by evolution are simply that, because there are no figures to work with. How do you quantify the probability that life will arise one way or another without 1) a series of different “trials” of life that arose by a method other than evolution, or 2) a great number of different “trials” with which to access probability. As it happens, we know of only one trial (Earth) and the vast majority of evidence suggests that evolution was the nature by which the complexity of life emerged. Secondly, even if such a thing could exist, “impossibility” is a mischaracterization. “Improbability” is the more appropriate term. Although it might be theoretically “improbable” that life progressed by evolution, it is not impossible, particularly since we have documented evidence where the mechanisms of evolution in fact influenced living systems in a way that could produce changes in ability of a group of organisms to reproduce with members of similar groups (the process that inevitably produces new species and the linchpin of macroevolution).
Also, I believe that the distinction should be made between micro- and macroevolution. However, it should be made properly, insofar as the two categories are only categorically separated by the focus of study (microevolution is the study of evolutionary mechanisms, where macroevolution is the study of related groups of organisms). However, it should be (properly) stressed that functionally, microevolution and macroevolution are not different from one another. Macroevolution is essentially the compounded effects of microevolution that produce a reproductive rift within a species that eventually results in the production of an entirely new species.
“In my public high school, I did an independent study on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory, and it drove me to creationism.”
Interesting. So you thoroughly studied all the evidence in favor of evolution (by which, I’m sure you mean the mountains of books and journal articles that outline in detail that evidence), and then looked at the missing pieces of the puzzle, and decided that since evolution doesn’t yet have all the answers (instead, only a vast majority of answers), that creationism was the superior alternative. That doesn’t sound like informed reasoning to me, it sounds as if you were set on accepting an account of life that jives with your worldview. A truly rational solution would have been to withhold judgment, though that still in a way flies in the face of the overwhelming power of the body of evidence in favor of evolution.
“Also, when students would bring up creationism and ID during biology class, my high school biology teacher welcomed the talk. I honestly don’t know if he was an evolutionist or creationist, but he valued open conversation about the topic. When the students bring it up, it should be discussed, whatever class. Parents can always teach more about creationism at home, too.”
Sounds like a good teacher. I certainly hope he was knowledgeable to correct any misconceptions you had about evolution. I agree with your final statement, though I would removed the words “more about” from the sentence.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
steffie:
“What I WOULD like is for teachers to be honest about the shortcomings in the theory of evolution (i.e. “Darwin’s Black Box,” the mathematical impossibilities), be clear about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and just be honest that maybe scientists don’t have all the answers on this yet.”
I agree that the shortcomings of evolution should be presented in a more accessible way. However, firstly, the concept of irreducible complexity you cite (Behe’s work “Darwin’s Black Box”) has been soundly refuted in the academic texts and is considered a non-issue. Furthermore, a discussion of the “mathematical impossibilities” you describe is both disingenuous and a mischaracterization. Any speculations made about the probabilities involved in the chance of life progressing by evolution are simply that, because there are no figures to work with. How do you quantify the probability that life will arise one way or another without 1) a series of different “trials” of life that arose by a method other than evolution, or 2) a great number of different “trials” with which to access probability. As it happens, we know of only one trial (Earth) and the vast majority of evidence suggests that evolution was the nature by which the complexity of life emerged. Secondly, even if such a thing could exist, “impossibility” is a mischaracterization. “Improbability” is the more appropriate term. Although it might be theoretically “improbable” that life progressed by evolution, it is not impossible, particularly since we have documented evidence where the mechanisms of evolution in fact influenced living systems in a way that could produce changes in ability of a group of organisms to reproduce with members of similar groups (the process that inevitably produces new species and the linchpin of macroevolution).
Also, I believe that the distinction should be made between micro- and macroevolution. However, it should be made properly, insofar as the two categories are only categorically separated by the focus of study (microevolution is the study of evolutionary mechanisms, where macroevolution is the study of related groups of organisms). However, it should be (properly) stressed that functionally, microevolution and macroevolution are not different from one another. Macroevolution is essentially the compounded effects of microevolution that produce a reproductive rift within a species that eventually results in the production of an entirely new species.
“In my public high school, I did an independent study on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory, and it drove me to creationism.”
Interesting. So you thoroughly studied all the evidence in favor of evolution (by which, I’m sure you mean the mountains of books and journal articles that outline in detail that evidence), and then looked at the missing pieces of the puzzle, and decided that since evolution doesn’t yet have all the answers (instead, only a vast majority of answers), that creationism was the superior alternative. That doesn’t sound like informed reasoning to me, it sounds as if you were set on accepting an account of life that jives with your worldview. A truly rational solution would have been to withhold judgment, though that still in a way flies in the face of the overwhelming power of the body of evidence in favor of evolution.
“Also, when students would bring up creationism and ID during biology class, my high school biology teacher welcomed the talk. I honestly don’t know if he was an evolutionist or creationist, but he valued open conversation about the topic. When the students bring it up, it should be discussed, whatever class. Parents can always teach more about creationism at home, too.”
Sounds like a good teacher. I certainly hope he was knowledgeable to correct any misconceptions you had about evolution. I agree with your final statement, though I would removed the words “more about” from the sentence.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
SlickWilly: “Creationism is … a single axiom, namely “God created the world and all the creatures in it *in the forms by which they now appear*.”
There are many forms of creationism, even within Christianity. Some assert the above, others allow for development (eg by evolution) within the created universe.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am
astraya: No, God-directed evolution is different, because it allows common descent. That concept is mutually exclusive of creationism. If you believe that animals evolve, then you are not a creationist.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am
We disagree. Fine.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Do you have a basis for your disagreement, or are you simply upset that I told you that you were wrong?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Do we need to teach any type of creationism in the first place? Why not skip that and go to more important stuff like mathematics and language arts.
Let the parents at home teach that stuff.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:38 am
1) I am right.
2) You are wrong.
3) I’ve got far too much else to do with my time than to engage in extra research and type a lengthy argument when you’ve already made up your mind.
So I repeat:
1) There are many forms of creationism.
2) Some of these deny evolutionary processes.
3) Some of these allow evolutionary processes.
Goodbye from this discussion.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:24 am
astraya:
1)You are wrong
2)Slickwilly is right
3)It’s funny that the “preciousness” of your time seems to be the tidal variety–when forcefully disagreed with, you become indignant and storm off, or imply that the person disagreeing with you is unreasonable. I’ve seen this before from you, myself… though we won’t resurrect old and irrelevant arguments here.
So *I* repeat (pace Slickwilly)
1) There are NOT many forms of creationism
2) creationism pure and simple DENIES evolutionary processes
3) a creationism that “allows” evolutionary processes is, by definition, NOT creationism.
Goodbye and have fun storming off the next conversation when you’re contradicted.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:43 am
DO NOT teach “Creationism” (the religious doctrine definition) in public school. For the Bible believing Christian, Romans 16:17-18 and I Corinthians 1:10 forbid
having non-like-minded believers teaching religion to them or their families.
DO NOT teach “Darwinism, Evolutionism, Materialism, Atheism, or Non-Human Secularism” (the religious doctrine definition). Teaching the D.E.M.A.N.S. religions or
religions of any kind have no place in public tax payer funded schools.
Parents or guardians not the public institutions should teach a child’s religious beliefs.
DO teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution (the non-religious definition) or intelligent design (the non-religious definition) that is testable and
observable science. If textbooks, scientists, teachers or administrations blatantly continue teaching what turns out to be scientifically false or deceptive or
protecting of their religion, remove the textbook, unfund their work, change the curriculum, fire them or close the school.
STOP tax payer funding of public schools or colleges that are religious organizations or that teach religion as science. In this free country they are always welcome
to open a private funded parochial school to teach their religion if they so choose. Just do not ask the public tax payer to support their religion masquerading as
science teachings.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:48 am
There are very many forms of creationism – about as many as there are people who believe in creationism. You refer to “creationism pure and simple”, which implies that there are other forms – perhaps less “pure and simple”. Only simple people believe that creationism is simple. I believe that it is complex. So do many other people.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Ridethelightning:
I simply had to answer your sanctimonious post, as I find it helps my breakfast digestion to find something, every morning, that irks the hell out of me.
“I have a feeling you don’t know nearly as much about Christianity as you think you do, my friend.”
Naturally, you know better. An arrogant belief in one’s OWN interpretation of christian doctrine is always the path to a fall, “ridethelightning.” (by the way, nice moniker. Something a stoner would spray paint on his van, I’m thinking).
In point of fact I believe totally with the poster whom you responded to (Chris, was it?) and I can assure you I DO know a great deal about Christianity. “My friend.”
You see, you don’t have a corner on the market of judging what Christian belief ought to be. This may come as a shock to you, but give yourself a few minutes to digest it, and reason might return to your addled brain, and you’re realize that you’ve behaved badly, and can thus apologize and go home.
“But the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross and was resurrected and that action literally paid the price required by all the sins of the world, is whole point of Christianity.”
WRONG. Granted, it is a question central to the mainstream of belief, and is certainly a basic tenet of catholocism. But the metaphoric reading of Christ’s death on the cross is just as valid and in NO WAY negates the ACTUAL point of Christianity, which is Christ’s MESSAGE. (in fact if anything, the metaphoric reading enhances his message). Now, no fundamentalist Christian and only some Catholics would agree with me on this–and we might even say that they’ve got numbers on their side. But majority rule doesn’t call it when the question is spiritual truth, “ridethelightning.” And in fact I know a great many Christians who agree with me. They simply do not see the necessity for, and many do not believe in, a bodily resurrection. Me, I’m inclined to think A) god doesn’t break his own physical rules, so he would leave physical death as physical death… and this is supported by B) I don’t see the necessity of a literal bodily resurrection. It isn’t necessary to have that, in order to accept a life after death, if that life is the life of the spirit.
Naturally, one can argue, also, that all this bodily resurrection stuff was simply taken up, rabidly, by early believers because, of course, it promises a “get out of death free” pass… which we’d ALL like to have. But preaching the resurrection of the physical body is the same as preaching the survival of the EGO. Which is not what Christ was about.
But this is no place for theological arguments, so enough.
Of course the idea of Christ dying on the cross to expunge the sins of the world is also attractive—but is also clearly metaphorical. But again, I have no wish to get into a lengthy argument about this. You are clearly someone who thinks “metaphor”=falsehood, which is a silly reading of the word and in fact simply wrong. (In fact metaphor usually leads us TO truth, not away from it).
“Without it…the rest of it doesn’t matter.”
Unbelievable. So Christ’s message doesn’t matter? None of what he said mattered? None of his earth-shattering lessons for humanity mattered? Then why didn’t he just go straight from baptism to climbing on the cross? Would have saved himself a lot of trouble.
“but your own righteousness ultimately will not matter once you die.”
In fact it will. If you grasp the understanding that death is death only for the individual, for the ego, for the body, and that resurrection is of the spirit… and it matters how we live life and how we treat one another while here, and how we find eternity within the life we’re given.
But again, that’s my reading and the reading of a lot of other people. YOU feel we’re wrong. *I* feel you’re wrong. But we’ll both end up in the same place, so I’m content in letting you have your comforting belief, while I keep to my more challenging and somewhat more profound one. I won’t tell you, as you told the original poster, that you know nothing about Christianity, or less than you think, or what have you.
“if the Bible is really going to mean anything deeper than what you get from a self help book, the interpretation has to be literal.”
RUBBISH. The bible, like all other such central texts of the spirit, can be a key to LIFE itself, if one finds the truth in it. This is FAR more than some “feel good” nonsense, it is the essence of life and living itself.
But see, it takes balls to approach the message of spirituality from that angle. It’s easier to just say “well the Bible promises me eternal life, and if I don’t get that promise, then it isn’t worth shit!” Which is why so many people lose their faith and leave christianity… it’s why, in fact, christianity has been losing ground for the last few centuries. Which is a shame because there remains the core truth to it that was always there–the same truth which resides in all religions, and is most closely echoed in buddhism. If we could all start living along the lines of that truth, you can bet your ass the world would be a better place. But it’s hard. Far easier to cling to a fairy story that doesn’t require tough work.
“Just so you know….the real Christians won’t buy your metaphor crap…maybe others will.”
“REAL” Christians? I see. And you, of course, have the right to say who and what a “real” christian is. Uh huh.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:19 am
327. Anne O’Nemus: It’s best to just take the insults at half there face value (or double it if the offending ‘imbecile’ was particularly idiotic). Sometimes, I picture Gilbert Godfrey yelling the insults instead (a la Hollywood Squares “YOU FOOL!”- no offense meant, Randall) and it makes much more sense to me.
Ridethelightning: “But the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross and was resurrected and that action literally paid the price required by all the sins of the world, is whole point of Christianity.” No, the belief that Jesus literally died on the cross…is the whole point of Christian guilt. The whole point of Christianity is obeying the 10 Commandments (the leftovers from Judeism) and to do all the nice things Jesus said, like love your neighbors equally, be nice, be generous, etc.
I hate people who think they are the Christian spokesperson. I’ve met a lot of you and none of you have ever actually been the Christ-Christians I so hope to meet someday. Being Christian is hard and I don’t mean that facetiously. To call yourself a Christian, you must obey the Commandments, not feed into the seven deadly sins, and obey what the Bible tells you (which is impossible in today’s society).
September 17th, 2008 at 6:33 am
randall: how are you going to say that this isn’t the place for a lengthy theological discussion and then go on and write at such length.
to borrow some of your language, you are in over your head here. this is my area of expertise.
“But the metaphoric reading of Christ’s death on the cross is just as valid and in NO WAY negates the ACTUAL point of Christianity, which is Christ’s MESSAGE.”
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 “3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.”
If this didn’t ACTUALLY happen, not metaphorically, any of these witnesses had the ability to come forward and disprove Paul’s writing. The burden of proof falls to the person saying this isn’t true. How can you explain away something like this with a plausible alternative other than saying, 2000 years later that it never was true?
“And in fact I know a great many Christians who agree with me. They simply do not see the necessity for, and many do not believe in, a bodily resurrection. ”
Then, no you don’t know any Christians who agree with you. it is the same thing that you were arguing earlier. if you allow for God to have controlled evolution then you are not a creationist, was your argument. my stance, if you do not believe in the bodily resurrection then you are not a Christian.
“Of course the idea of Christ dying on the cross to expunge the sins of the world is also attractive—but is also clearly metaphorical.”
how is this clearly metaphorical when the entire sacrificial structure of the old testament points to this being the means by which God forgives? you are pushing this metaphor idea too far when it just doesn’t fit.
“So Christ’s message doesn’t matter? None of what he said mattered? None of his earth-shattering lessons for humanity mattered? ”
you got it. Christ said he WAS God. if he wasn’t he was not a good teacher. he was an outright liar or a crazy man.
“In fact it will. If you grasp the understanding that death is death only for the individual, for the ego, for the body, and that resurrection is of the spirit… and it matters how we live life and how we treat one another while here, and how we find eternity within the life we’re given.”
Isaiah 64:6 “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
we have no goodness to offer God apart from Him. this is the entire story of redemption. if we were good enough to stand before God without an advocate the cross was totally unnecessary. however, one of the major themes that run through the Bible is humanities NEED of a Savior. think about it for a second, if there is an all-powerful, sovereign, absolutely holy, creator of all things…are you really going to stand before him and offer your life, or mine, as acceptable? what have we done that is worthy to be in the presence of such greatness?
September 17th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Cedestra:
Gilbert Godfried!?
(!)
Actually he is pretty funny sometimes. I think of myself as more the Don Rickles type though.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am
wow. I got into this one a bit late-and I could only read the first 20 or so comments… so please don’t harass me if I repeat what others may have wrote befor eme…
Creationism should be taught in schools. yes. as should Greek Mythology. and Norse Mythology.Native American Mythology and Egyptian as well. Christian Mythology is no different. It does not belong in any Science Curriculum as an alternate “theory” of the beginnings of life or the universe, but it does belong in some humanitarian courses, such as Religious studies or Ethics.
I know this sounds weird coming from an atheist-but I also think that any believer of any religion should strive to educate themselves concerning other religions from the past and those currently surrounding them, as a way of expanding their knowledge base.
RTR
September 17th, 2008 at 7:02 am
p.s. eve’s got great tits in the pic, Jaime! nice choice. I always thought of Durer’s eve…
RTR