creationism?

[Master Hade]

ok so i see a lot of people take the opinion that teaching creationism in schools is bad. I was just wondering why you all think so... just wondering! thanks

[Gustav]

Cause creationism, at least to the beginning of the universe, is proven false. now, of course, God could have created the universe, but the bible's description of adam and eve is quite doubtful.

[Master Hade]

but creatsionism isn't teaching the bible it is teaching that a higher power created the earth... any god u pick which one... Idc which just pick maybe the god shibidy-didy bo was the one who did it...

[Joey]

In my opinion, creationism is incredibly out of touch. There are hoards indisputable scientific evidence that natural selection and evolution has taken place. It may only be accepted as a "theory" now, but so is gravity and yet we experience gravity.

[Anfronee]

Do you mind me asking what part of creationism says that national selection and evolution doesn't exist?

[Master Hade]

see all creationism is saying is that some higher power created this and i don't see why that can't be taught !

[NathanHaleFan]

Creationism says that it's "science", because the champions of Creationism know that that's the only way to get it into science classrooms. However, the Creationists refuse to submit it through the scientific process. All new scientific hypotheses are submitted into peer review, a process where other scientists verifiy evidence, reproduce experiments, and generally test the theory to see whether it is correct. If nobody has any beefs with the theory, i.e. if it's not disproven or shown to be wrong, then it's gradually added to textbooks and accepted into our body of knowledge. This process is not a quick one.

The Creationists aren't submitting their hypotheses for review (which is a necessary process). Instead, they want to skip all of the steps of review and go straight to classroom and textbook. They're trying to cheat the system. Why should every other new bit of science have to prove its worth, while Creationism gets to stroll right into the classroom untested? It's simply not fair.

Why are the Creationists refusing to have their stuff scientifically examined? It's pretty clear that they know it would never survive the review, as it's pure religion masquerading as science. It was only invented by Christians because Evolution supposedly conflicted with their biblical beliefs. Their beliefs so strong, they decided "Since my beliefs are obviously correct, then the science must be wrong" without even seeing whether their beliefs were wrong instead.

For more info as to why Creationism is losing the battle for the classroom, learn about the court case "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District" where Intelligent Design was proven to be equal to Creationism, and Creationism was banned from the classrooms of Dover, PA in 2005.

[n1ck]

Hey,

see all creationism is saying is that some higher power created this and i don't see why that can't be taught !

That's exactly the problem! :icon_bigg

Ok, first off, not knowing how or why we are here is completely unsatisfying and very frustrating.

But... Just because we cannot answer that... it does not follow at all that we should therefore make the situation truly unbelievable by making it arbitrarily more complex, without any evidence to do so.... which is what creationism does. (Lookup Occam's Razor)

Introducing the concept of a deity/greater being, required for creationism, does exactly that and it is an act of intellectual suicide to believe that it provides a satisfying, let alone any, explanation. It does not.

In my opinion, it is one of those questions that we just cannot answer.

I am definitely Atheist. Why? Well, I do not believe that a greater being exists...

Yes, I cannot be sure that one, or an infinite number, does not exist but...

As you cannot prove a negative, it is impossible for anybody to show that the Christan God, or anything for that matter - like a flying spaghetti monster, does not exist.

It certainly does not follow though that just because I cannot show that a greater being does not exist that one must exist, or that I should believe in one just in case! That would be patently absurd and I would do myself a huge disservice were I to do so.

It is illogical and completely irrational for anybody to structure their beliefs without evidence - and, in my view, doing so is tantamount to intellectual suicide. (Following that line of thought, somebody who is prepared to do so should believe in anything, no matter how absurd...)

[Master Hade]

see arguements thanks!

who do u send it to for review which scientifc organization has the power to deem somthing correct or incorect

[NathanHaleFan]

"Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."

That's an excerpt from a creationism textbook. I think that answers Anfronee's question, "Where does creationism say that [natural] selection and evolution don't exist?"

The excerpt also shows where Creationism conflicts severely with evolution, which is an established part of science and a proven theory. To be taught, Creationists would have to disprove evolution, which they haven't even scratched (though they like to think they have). If all the arguments for creationism were valid, you'd think that they'd come out of scientific review unscathed and lauded, at that.

Uh, but they haven't.

[n1ck]

see arguements thanks!

who do u send it to for review which scientifc organization has the power to deem somthing correct or incorect

It doesn't work like that. It has to pass peer review...

The problem is that there is nothing for any scientist to review. There is no "evidence" for the existence of a greater being that holds up to scientific scrutiny.

I would recommend reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Ciao,

Nick

[NathanHaleFan]

who do u send it to for review which scientifc organization has the power to deem somthing correct or incorect

There's no one, big, special conglomerate of scientists that has the power to decide truth (it's not a bureaucracy) Correctness or incorrectness is determined many independent scientists all reproducing the same result. You usually give it to numerous independent experts in the same field. Professors of biology, for example.

[Anfronee]

It is illogical and completely irrational for anybody to structure their beliefs without evidence - and, in my view, doing so is tantamount to intellectual suicide. (Following that line of thought, somebody who is prepared to do so should believe in anything, no matter how absurd...)

According to Dictionary.com a belief is: 1. something believed; a conviction or an opinion. 2. confidence in the truth or existence in something no immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. confidence; faith; trust.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof. I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God. It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

[Master Hade]

According to Dictionary.com a belief is: 1. something believed; a conviction or an opinion. 2. confidence in the truth or existence in something no immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. confidence; faith; trust.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof. I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God. It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

exactly but that makes it a religion not a scientific theory thus their argument saying that it shouldn't be in a classroom! It is a lot of shades of grey and... well lets see mmmmm.
I have really figured out an opinion yet since i don't have a full grasp on the concept of creationism ( or the part they want to be taught in schools)

[Malchik89]

According to Dictionary.com a belief is: 1. something believed; a conviction or an opinion. 2. confidence in the truth or existence in something no immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. confidence; faith; trust.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof. I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God. It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

exactly but that makes it a religion not a scientific theory thus their argument saying that it shouldn't be in a classroom! It is a lot of shades of grey and... well lets see mmmmm.
I have really figured out an opinion yet since i don't have a full grasp on the concept of creationism ( or the part they want to be taught in schools)

So you're saying that because it is a religion, that it should be in a classroom. ever hear of separation of church and state? lol

[Anfronee]

He was not saying that it should be in the classroom. He was saying what I said Validated their point. I also would recommend you research "Church and state" laws and their origins. Not that I think one religion should be forced down peoples throats in school, but the extreme that phrase is being use now. It is about the equivalent of people saying we shouldn't mention the word Gay in schools Because some people might not be gay and thus offended.

[Master Hade]

umm im pretty sure it said right there that i didn't have an opinon.... and thank you anfronee for sticking up for me!

[NathanHaleFan]

Anfronee, I don't think many people support the belief that religion shouldn't be mentioned in school. That's about as stupid as not saying the word "gay" or not allowing children to say the word "beer," like in the old song "Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall." (We were forced to say "pop")

Of course people should be allowed to discuss religion, differences between each one, and the origins of each.

It's just that a teacher and a curriculum need to be religion-neutral: never to advocate the belief in one religion over another, or religion in general over non-belief. That's for Sunday-school.

[Master Hade]

i think ur right about creationism not being taught... untill i can see what the actuall plan for teaching is and the ciriculum and such i can;t really decide!

[n1ck]

It is illogical and completely irrational for anybody to structure their beliefs without evidence - and, in my view, doing so is tantamount to intellectual suicide. (Following that line of thought, somebody who is prepared to do so should believe in anything, no matter how absurd...)

According to Dictionary.com a belief is: 1. something believed; a conviction or an opinion. 2. confidence in the truth or existence in something no immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. confidence; faith; trust.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof. I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God. It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

I don't see how a semantic discrepancy negates my point. The standards that others have for what they would term a belief are not mine.

I, of course, respect your right to believe in whatever you choose to believe in.

I was merely saying that, in my opinion, we do ourselves a disservice if we believe in something without any evidence, and therefore reason, on which to base that belief. (I hold myself to a higher standard than that...)

Carl Sagan has a great quote:

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

[n1ck]

It is illogical and completely irrational for anybody to structure their beliefs without evidence - and, in my view, doing so is tantamount to intellectual suicide. (Following that line of thought, somebody who is prepared to do so should believe in anything, no matter how absurd...)

According to Dictionary.com a belief is: 1. something believed; a conviction or an opinion. 2. confidence in the truth or existence in something no immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. confidence; faith; trust.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof. I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God. It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof.

Couldn't agree more. Only a reason, which requires evidence surely?, on which to base that belief.

I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God.

No disagreement there.:icon_bigg There is a term in philosophy for those who act rationally in all areas of their life except when it comes to religion, compartmentalism. Perhaps this is because it gives them comfort or it is what many others believe so they are not prepared to question it with intellectual rigor, being held by the grips of indoctrination.

It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

If that is all you need, then I'm happy for you. I personally couldn't let myself do that, no matter how "right" it felt.

[Anfronee]

You are lucky your cute. :)

My belief in a God is stemmed from a relationship I have with God. And How do you know if I have not questioned my belief "with intellectual rigor"?

And do you believe in Love? Just wondering?

[smartguy]

whats there to teach

if get into any detail youre getting into religious territory which can't be taught

[n1ck]

You are lucky your cute. :)

My belief in a God is stemmed from a relationship I have with God. And How do you know if I have not questioned my belief "with intellectual rigor"?

And do you believe in Love? Just wondering?

Hehe, sorry if I sound confrontational, I really don't mean to be!

Just meant as a challenging conversation.

Must admit you've completely lost me.... :)

My belief in a God is stemmed from a relationship I have with God.

Could I tentatively ask you to elaborate on that?

From an philosophical/intellectual/scientific perspective, that is a vacuous statement... It is certainly one that appeals to emotion, but nothing more than that.

And How do you know if I have not questioned my belief "with intellectual rigor"?

Is it not anti-intellectual to believe in something without evidence? I certainly think so.

I, and many others, would -genuinely- be fascinated to hear what evidence you have, that would hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, for the existence of any greater being.

Challenging something with intellectual rigor means following the principles of freethought and the scientific method when coming to a theory/belief. Are you saying that you have done that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And do you believe in Love? Just wondering?

Of course I believe that we can love one another. That has, however, absolutely nothing to do with belief in the supernatural. (Be careful not to fall in to the trap of an association fallacy here!)

Ending with a little food for thought. If you were born in Iran, can you honestly say that you think that your beliefs would be the same? And with that in mind, what makes your God any more valid than theirs?

Sorry if this makes for uncomfortable reading. The intellectual approach is to not take it as a personal attack (it is definitely not meant as such), rather a personal challenge to justify your beliefs from philosophical base principals.

I certainly find it a highly stimulating when people challenge my beliefs. :)

[n1ck]

whats there to teach

if get into any detail youre getting into religious territory which can't be taught

Agreed. Which means it is anti-thought surely?

[Malchik89]

He was not saying that it should be in the classroom. He was saying what I said Validated their point. I also would recommend you research "Church and state" laws and their origins. Not that I think one religion should be forced down peoples throats in school, but the extreme that phrase is being use now. It is about the equivalent of people saying we shouldn't mention the word Gay in schools Because some people might not be gay and thus offended.

Ok but can you really compare being gay, to following a chosen path in religion? Keyword in there being CHOSEN. If people want to learn about creationism they should do it on their own accord, not be forced to learn about it in school. And i actually did do my research on separation of Church and State and according to Edwards vs. Aguillard 1987 the teaching of creationism as science in public schools violates church-state separation since it is a theological concept. The point of learning in schools is to keep an open mind, not to say that this how it happened and that is that. I learned about evolution in biology my freshman year and even then i was told to keep an open mind and to believe what i want to believe.

And my bad Master Hade, I misread what you said xD

[NathanHaleFan]

according to Edwards vs. Aguillard 1987 the teaching of creationism as science in public schools violates church-state separation since it is a theological concept.

Very true... In only a few months after that verdict, the Creationist textbooks changed every instance of the word "creationism" to "Intelligent Design," as well as "Creator" to "designer" and so forth. This necessitated the Dover Trial in 2005, which established that Creationism was the same as I.D., and thus was also banned.

I learned about evolution in biology my freshman year and even then i was told to keep an open mind and to believe what i want to believe.

Yeah, but I hope they did not tell you that ONLY evolution should have been approached with an open mind and critically considered. They should have said that EVERYTHING in science should be approached with an open mind and critically considered. Singling out evolution is intentionally misleading and untruthful.

[Swamp56]

If something isn't written by that god him/herself, I don't trust it :) . Man is too easily swayed and corrupted.

[Henrike]

Creationism is based on belief. Even though evolution isn't perfect, it's the closest to fact that we have, thanks to things such as micro-evolution. It's totally alright to believe in creationism, but it doesn't belong in our science classes.

[smartguy]

Creationism is based on belief. Even though evolution isn't perfect, it's the closest to fact that we have, thanks to things such as micro-evolution. It's totally alright to believe in creationism, but it doesn't belong in our science classes.


yea

there really is no argument. creationism is religion-based. separation of church and state people

[Malchik89]

I learned about evolution in biology my freshman year and even then i was told to keep an open mind and to believe what i want to believe.

Yeah, but I hope they did not tell you that ONLY evolution should have been approached with an open mind and critically considered. They should have said that EVERYTHING in science should be approached with an open mind and critically considered. Singling out evolution is intentionally misleading and untruthful.

Thats what i mean't to say, that even though i was taught evolution i was still to keep an open mind about all the different possibilities about how the world was formed (scientific and/or spiritual)

[n1ck]

If something isn't written by that god him/herself, I don't trust it :) . Man is too easily swayed and corrupted.

I think you're going to spend a long time looking...

Yes, we're fallible but we're the best we've got.

Part of the scientific method is putting in the checks and balances to mitigate corruption. (Again, yes it happens, but it's an imperfect works and we have to do our best...)

Historically, religion has, and continues to be, one of the most corrupt/misappropriated things out there...

[Wander]

Without having read any of the other posts aside from the opening one, here's why I think teaching creationism in public schools is a lousy idea:

First of all, "teach the controversy" is completely full of shit. School children are simply not educated enough to make their own guesses on something as broad as cosmology. Science is not a field to present a semi-educated person with two options and let them choose which they like best. Conspiracy theories are not taught in history classes because it's not the school's or the student's place to decide which account is correct. The leading scientists of the academic arena spend their lives researching these sorts of things, and they come to a certain or near-certain conclusion, and that conclusion is what is taught in public schools, supported by the taxpaying citizens. The conclusion that the vast majority of learned cosmologists have reached is that the earth did not pop into existence, certainly not within seven days, and absolutely not a mere 6,000 years ago. I have never once met a creationist who is not also a theist, and any form of theism has ZERO, absolutely NO place in public education. It is not worth one second of my time. Creationism, ID, whatever banner it decides to hide behind, I want nothing to do with it.

[Geist]

Well if we begin teaching creationism in school, a theory based on the words in a theological text then we will have to begin teaching all religious creation theories. I mean who is to say the creation theory of the bible is more qualified to be taught than the creation theory of Hinduism.

The teaching of a religious theory in a science class would be a massive step back in scientific advancement as a society. Now I'm not here to bash other peoples beliefs I myself am a very religious person but religion should be taught in churches, temples, etc but not in our public schools.

[Alexander]

If a student took a Religious Theology and Beliefs course, I would not object to creationism being taught in that class. However, as a scientific alternative to evolution, it simply doesn't compare. And what's the big whoop, if you believe in God you know that creation could be evolution anyway.

[Gerry]

Creationsim cannot be taught because religion and school are separate (except for private relgious schools) and you can't bring it into the classroom.

[lcr guy]

Two words: Intelligent Design.

Everyone believes in "evolution", we can see it all around us. We just disagree on how it happens.

Check out intelligent design, that uses actual scientific evidence to show the interconnectedness of life, unlike Darwin's theories (which have not been proven, and in many cases disproven) that say everything in the world is based on random mutations--chance.... I find that so unbelievable, because not just isolated animals or ecosystems, but everything in the world works and fits together like Legos. That leads me to believe it's part of a design, as intricate as our DNA.

[Poring]

Remember that evolution is still just a theory. Compared to scientific laws which is proven without a doubt, scientific theories mainly explain (and are probably just intelligent conjectures and conclusions) about a certain law.

Since no one was there to actually witness the evolution, its just a theory (as of now anyway)

Since I don't really know what creationism is, but in our school, we have religion class and are taught the creation story, we are told that science does not conflict with the bible. The exact reason I forgot but I think it was because one should never take the bible literally, and that science is only explaining how one thing happens, while the bible goes into the deeper issue (or something).

Honestly though, I still see the parallelism in the creation story (the God created the world in 7 days thing) to evolution.

[NathanHaleFan]

Remember that evolution is still just a theory. Compared to scientific laws which is proven without a doubt, scientific theories mainly explain (and are probably just intelligent conjectures and conclusions) about a certain law.

Since no one was there to actually witness the evolution, its just a theory (as of now anyway)

You don't understand the scientific use of the word "theory."

In college, you may take a course called "Atomic Theory." There's no time in the future when the professor is gonna change the name to "Atomic Fact." That's not what it's about. Theories don't someday become "really good" and then graduate into "fact." Evolution is a theory, and a fact (it really happened).

Theories explain facts and unite them. The theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation of what we observe around us, backed up by fact. If it weren't, we would call it a "hypothesis". Gravity is also a "theory" and a "fact."

[NathanHaleFan]

Check out intelligent design, that uses actual scientific evidence to show the interconnectedness of life, unlike Darwin's theories (which have not been proven, and in many cases disproven)

Intelligent Design advocates do not use actual evidence. They don't concentrate on research (they don't produce any), peer review publications, or winning scientific consensus (they haven't). They've only concentrated on public relations and political pressure. And check out the Dover Trial, where evolution was proved again, and ID was disproved.

Darwin's theories... that say everything in the world is based on random mutations--chance...

You're making a "straw-man" of evolution. You're ignoring the fact that nature keeps what works and discards what doesn't.

[lcr guy]

Intelligent Design advocates do not use actual evidence. They don't concentrate on research (they don't produce any), peer review publications, or winning scientific consensus (they haven't). They've only concentrated on public relations and political pressure. And check out the Dover Trial, where evolution was proved again, and ID was disproved.

First ID is a theory of evolution, just like Darwin's theory.
The Thing is, they do not let scientists have an actual debate on the subject because the Darwinists are afraid of anyone potentially poking holes in their unwaivering belief in Darwin's 150 year old theory. That doesn't sound like science to me. And shouldn't we learn all the alternatives in school--- to expand our mind and let us decide for ourselves?

You're making a "straw-man" of evolution. You're ignoring the fact that nature keeps what works and discards what doesn't.[/QUOTE]

How does nature "know" what works or what will work down the line if everything truly is random, without a plan? Also, where's the fossil record of all these transitional creatures, or how about randomly mutated creatures that didn't survive because they were "discarded" for just being too weird (like a donkey with wings)?

[SlickyPants]

If a student took a Religious Theology and Beliefs course, I would not object to creationism being taught in that class. However, as a scientific alternative to evolution, it simply doesn't compare. And what's the big whoop, if you believe in God you know that creation could be evolution anyway.

I definitely agree with Alexander. I think learning about religion is key to understanding history. In nearly every civilization religion penetrates just about every aspect of life. This is not as true with society today but still prevalent in some places.

The heart of this topic seems to be regarding teaching religion as an alternative to science which I think should not be done. I would imagine it would hold the human race far back from it's potential if it was allowed to be taught as fact in schools. Just look how long it took for Galileo's theory of heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun, to be accepted. To explain the unknown by attributing it to a "greater being" stifles our natural yearning to learn, explore and understand.

I have no qualms with people who believe in a greater being, I just think the teaching of these beliefs should be kept in churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, etc.

[NathanHaleFan]

[I]How does nature "know" what works or what will work down the line if everything truly is random, without a plan?

It is obvious that I need to explain evolution to you, as you don't even seem to be properly educated about how it works.

Thought experiment:
You have a population of grey rabbits that live in a snowy place. One day, during DNA transcription, the enzyme that copies DNA makes an error in the sequence. This error in the genetic code is called a mutation. Most mutations are (as you'd expect) harmful, and are gibberish that results in, most likely, the death or debilitation of the newborn organism (like muscular dystrophy in humans).

Today, though, purely by chance, it turns out that the new, mutated DNA instructions actually make better sense than the previous ones. How? This bunny being born is being born with white fur, instead of grey. This is the end of the randomness.

This bunny can blend in better to the snow. When she mates, her offspring will probably be white too, and will pass on her genes because they stand a better chance of surviving than the grey ones. Sooner or later all of the rabbits are white (The grey ones die off faster). This all has nothing to do with what the rabbits might want, or what nature wants (nature is blind). Evolution is imposed from the outside. If you're a grey rabbit, wolves are gonna eat you. If you're white, you can live and make lots of white babies, like yourself.

If you give this process a billion years, think of the changes that will happen in a species! A fish might grow legs to walk on land, where there are (as of then) no predators to eat the eggs that you lay! (This is the story of modern amphibians).

Now you must see how nature keeps what is good and weeds out the bad, without being random or all-knowing.

Also, where's the fossil record of all these transitional creatures?

Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
The species is named "Ambulocetus natans." If your Latin is good, you'll know that means "walking whale who swims." And that's one of many intermediates that creationists play stupid about. There are so many of these species, paleontologists are arguing about whether to call them "mammal-like fish" or "fish-like mammals."

if you read all that, you deserve one of these: (!)

[Bryan90]

I think it's fine for "creationism" to be taught.. But I just think that those who would be teaching it will instill "personal zeal" into the teachings.

I think it's fine for: "There are many 'coincidences' throughout evolution that perhaps can be explained by creationism or theistic evolution."

But I have a feeling it'd turn out to be: "You see how smart those ants are! You know why? God created them!!! So believe in GOD!!"