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]
“As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.” Hallelujah
“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
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?
I found the article and will read it now http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
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…
“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.
“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?
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?
“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.
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.
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.
NO, Creationism should NOT be taught in schools.
Let’s all be honest about this and cut the bull*****. 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.
“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.
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.
“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?
“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?
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
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
“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.
big magic man did it!!
“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?
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
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 ***** 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…
“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.
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.
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
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.”
Bull*****. 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.
Ouch, I just read some comments. People are not going to be civil
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 “*****ual reproduction” theories. THE STORK BRINGS THE BABY, DEAL WITH IT YOU… “SCIENTISTS!”
“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
Yes, of course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-***** 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.
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.
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.
Sedulous:
Very well put
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…
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.
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.
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.
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 *****ogy 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
“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 *****, violance, scandal and evolution “crammed” down its throat every day so why not at least try and balance it out?
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.
“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?
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.
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!
“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.
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.
@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?
“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.
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.