Creationism vs. Evolutionism in schools
 

Expanding students' horizons in making their own decisions on what they believe is what I strongly support and I am glad someone is making the move, even if it produces contreversy, which is innevitable. After clicking the link, click on the "Evolution Debate" video.....
http://video.msn.com/video/p.htm?t=1...4-d37a5667449b

I say, if they want to teach creationism, so be it.

There is no place for creationism in public schools. I see no need at all to debate this.

If there is a question about evolution as a theory... great. Let's discuss. Let's discuss ad nauseum.

Lessons in Creationism has a place and that place is a church.

I agree 100%, Charlatan.

...

Many religions have <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2027_statements_from_religious_orga_1_26_2001.asp">spoken out</a> in regards to this. Most recognizing that strict creationism should not be taught in schools.

I long to see the day when creationism is taught in the classroom as a quaint anthropological curiosity.

This always seems to degrade to a religious vs non-religious argument. But if you can put aside for the moment... Why censure one theory over another. I realize that the Biblical account of Creation is difficult to accept, but the current theory of Evolution has many holes as well. Until it can be proven that the universe did not begin as an Act of Will, why not offer it as a possibility. To do otherwise, is to deny children the right to think for themselves.

<flame away>

Make the kids aware of all ways of thinking, show them the proofs and holes in each theory and let the kids make up their own (damn) minds what they believe in.

If i was writing this with a pen, the last full stop (period) would have gone straight through the paper. Indoctrination in schools is something i cant stand, whether its for or against my own way of thinking.

Creationism isn't a theory, it is something one must take on faith, and if we're going to start teaching faith based creation stories as fact we should make room for the creation stories of all faiths, not just the christian ones.

I think if you're gonna teach one, you need to teach both....students need to understand that not everyone believes one or the other....its more of education both sides of the coin in my opinion

But if you're going to teach creation stories, you can't legally just stick to the christian one because that would amount to state endorsement of a specific religion over another. You'd have to teach the hindu creation story, and you'd have to teach the muslim one, and you'd have to teach the moonie one. You'd just be opening a huge can of worms.

I've long thought that education children world religions would be such a good thing, as well as teaching evolution and ummm Im not sure what you'd call it....but where they would be educated on atheism and agnostics as well....but Im one of those geeks that studied it all on my own so that I would be able to ask the people in the world that I meet from various religions intelligent questions.

but thats just me....like I said Im a geek

School should give time to serious educational considerations. When most Bible-based religions reject creationism beyond the simple idea that God is behind creation, not to mention all the people who don't adhere to a Bible-based religion going to school in a public setting, it is clear that creationism is a fringe religious belief with little basis and should not be taught in public schools. The majority of religions have no problem coping with evolution being taught in schools - they say "yeah, and God was behind that." As for those who do have an issue with it, when objective evidence beyond the mere fact that we exist can be shown, then schools should consider teaching it. As it stands, all "objective evidence" that I've read in regards to creationism is, no offense to anyone here who may believe it, crack-pot science.

If people want to lobby for schools to be teaching any aspect of creationism, it should not be focused on science classes but, rather, on classes adressing world religions, such as an OPTIONAL class dedicated to studying the ways in which various different religions view creation.

SM agreed with me? well color me black and call me a sharpie cause Im gonna circle this day on the calendar ha ha ha

well there's nothing wrong with optional classes that study religions from an objective standpoint - plenty of schools have those. Teaching creationism in science classes, which is what the majority (if not all) creationist lobbyists want, wrongly causes it to appear that there is some scientific basis for it, which there isn't.

firtherton, I'm not sure if you actually read my post, but I specifically removed any reference to Christianity or any denomination. Creationism is a theory (defined as speculation, ideal, belief, hypothetical set of facts, conjecture, unproved assumption) that we exist thru an act of will. I make no judgement as to who's (or what's) will that is or how that will came to create us.

OT:
How can God create day and night before the sun

actually stuff that...i thought this was the only topic about this. looks like the whole forum is about it.

While I think it is good to teach creationism versus evolution, primary and secondary school children are too young to be exposed to that kind of controversy. They generally take what they learn in school as hard fact, and introducing both will just result in confusion. Creationism should be left out because, if it is purely the direct Christian version, it is probably wrong, and has no scientific method applied to it. I think they're good topics for discussion in certain post-secondary classes though.

I don't know why I would expect MSN to support anything other than Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player...

So, what's the gist of the video?

I think it depends on what you think the purpose of a highschool science education is supposed to be. If you think it's purpose is to teach kids to think about the world skeptically and analytically... ignoring the fact that schools generally fail at this anyway, creationism offers a good example of how people can put together a convincing sounding bit of sophistry by exploiting common misunderstandings.

By discussing creationism you can teach kids how to think critically, and point out the exact misconcept being exploited... and so ensure the kids have the correct concept and maybe prevent them from being taken in by similar scams.

The only real danger is people getting the mistaken impression that creationism is anywhere near an equal footing with actual science.

Now that's disingenuous at best. When is the last time you heard about Buddhists against Darwin, or Fundamentalist Muslim Parent groups wanting to put warning stickers on books that teach evolution? It boils down to a question about teaching Christianity in schools because people who call themselves Christians (many or most of whom are actually neo-Pharisees) are the ones who keep bringing it up. Or is the Ba'hai lobby in on this now too?

My anthropology class got a nice 6 hour block (across two classes) covering various theories about how we came to be. Basically, the professor told us that evolution is not a perfect theory, and doesn't explain 100% of what happens, but that combined with other factors, it fits almost perfectly and satisfies Occham's razor (simplest answer is probably right.) Basically, the course material allowed us to make the logical conclusion that creationism, while still a widely held theory, does not make nearly as much sense as evolution/natural selection. Other theories like punctuated equilibrium and catastrophism were given equal time and debunked accordingly.

Even if creationism were taught in schools, it probably wouldn't be Bible-based, at least not openly. Most likely it'd be like intelligent design, where no particular religion is endorsed.

As I understand it, creationism is by definition the strict belief in the Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, seven day theory.

so you'd be okay if they also taught my theory that the world was created by dropping out of the anus of a giant pink and purple polka dotted unicorn with a bad case of jock itch?

but it's not the state taking a stance about religion. it is teaching the scientific communities current theory on our origin. creationism and intelligent design are not 'theories' is only one sense of the word. they're stories, they're ideas, not unlike conspiracy theories. no evidence so they can't be proved, and unfortunatly can't be disproved. i don't hear anyone complaining that teaching theories about how the sun functions and stars form is establishing a state stance on religion by not saying that they work because god said so.


unfortunatly not all students (age/maturity dependent) are able to differentiate between a real theory and a fictional story. creationism has to be taken on faith because there is no evidence for it. how can you teach something with no facts and no testable hypothesis possible in a public school? these two issues are not opposite sides of the same coin. they're two different coins, and they're not even the same currency.

i would have no problem with a comparative religions class teaching various religious beliefs and their origin stories. but keep it out of the science class rooms. evolution has been observable. while it's workings are not 100% known yet, there's much more evidence for it than for creationism. a lot (evolution) to none (creationism).

We had religious education classes in school for... 3 years, i believe. We touched on religions from anglican christianity to judaism to sikhism to ancient egyptian gods. Surely they must do that in every school??

Come to think of it, my R.E. teacher was a bit biased in the direction of christianity which spoiled things but it was enlightening nonetheless

Afterthought: Thats right, it was the first 3 years of high school with an option to take it for another 2 years to get a GCSE qualification in it. I took sciences instead.

I believe that both creationism and evolution have the same right to be taught in schools. Both are theories, none more proven than the other.
Yes, Christianity should be more focussed on, for it applies a large part of the population. It would be like teaching evolution without mentioning Darwin. Yes there are hundreds of theories for both, but why not focus on hte major ones?
Should both be taught in Science? No, I don't think EITHER should. They are belief based, not science based.

Hannukah ---- "so you'd be okay if they also taught my theory that the world was created by dropping out of the anus of a giant pink and purple polka dotted unicorn with a bad case of jock itch?"
--- this is an example of evolution, not creation.

I think most scientists will agree that life forms on this planet have been and are evolving. Therefore evolution of life on planet earth should be taught as our current best explaination of how this diversity has come about.

Just because we do not understand all the details of how this occurs is no reason to assume there is an intelligent designer behind it, much less require it be taught as a scientific explaination. Life on planet earth may be a school project, an experiment set up by a student from an advanced civilization or any number of other designer theories. This type of thinking belongs in a philosophy class and not a science class.

IMHO, teaching intelligent (or unintelligent) design is not much different than teaching that the Tower of Babel is the reason for the world's many diverse languages.

No, American high schools do not have mandatory religious studies classes. Some, like mine did, do have some optional classes though.Not true, there is a TON of physical evidence for evolution. There is absolutely none for creationism. As National Geographic states in its November 2004 issue ("Was Darwin Wrong?"): (Sorry, that's all I can quote since Academic Search Elite has a 3 month delay for getting the full text of articles online ;) I think you get the point though)Excellent parallel

I'm not sure if you read your post. You specifically mentioned the biblical account of creation. Furthermore, i highly doubt that most creationists are fighting for the right to teach hindu creation stories in their public schools. I would wager that most of them would abhor the idea of teaching curriculum that seemed to imply that other religions are just as valid as christianity.

Evolution is a theory, that means it is supported by experiment and observation. Creationism is not a theory, it is not supported by anything, it belongs in an anthro class, not a hard science class. There are holes in evolution just as there are holes in newtonian physics, but overall they seem like a pretty damn good explanation. Unlike any creationism story, which is completely untestable.

Anyone who insists that creationism belongs in the same group as evolution in terms of tested validity please e-mail me because i have some magic beans to sell you.

So, the video describes how a sticker has been placed in the front of the Science books stating that evolution is a 'theory'. Isn't it sensible to put similar stickers in the front of all the bibles that says 'This book is allegorical' - I don't see what the fuss is about.

However, doesn't it remain illegal to teach creationism in schools as part of the science curriculum?

I honestly think it would be effective to have a general class in which all religions and beliefs could be discussed in a free manner, w/o it being mandatory. I don't think children should be brought up blind-folded or set to one way of believing, but that they shouldn't be forced upon anything either. We all have choices in what to believe and it doesn't mean it has to be debated or for kids/parents to get offended when it is just showing the many windows of life.
Ya know what used to be okay in society years ago is not okay now or it's considered "wrong" all because someone decided to take offense- why? Because it goes against their beliefs. In this time we are not afriad to speak up, but the problem is we speak with negativity and blame and seperation. Just because some teacher discusses creationism & evolutionism does not mean it's being forced upon students. People's opinions and beleifs always change, therefore we should be able to see by now that protesting and taking offense to what is presented to us isn't working.

My gut response to prosequence's post is to say "Go on, pull the other one."

Evolution is a change in the genetic structure of a population over time. Such changes are known to actually occur. They have been observed. Evolution is a fact.

Thus, we can study known instances of evolution, and see what sort of telltales evolution leaves behind. Thus, when we find these telltales in a population that has not been under constant observation, we can say that these telltales are evidence that the population evolved... because, by observing evolution in action and how it affects the genome, we have established a standard of evidence. We can say if a given piece of information is evidence for, or against, evolution.

On the other hand, we have no standard of evidence for creationism. Thus, it is impossible to claim anything as evidence of creation... or evidence against. It is not science, and it has no evidence. It cannot have any evidence.... because creationism has provided no basis for identifying evidence for or against it.

Intelligent design is in basically the same boat as regular creationism... though I suppose someone could formulate a sufficiently rigorous definition of "intelligent design" to establish a standard of evidence by examining human artifacts. I have a feeling no one has done this publically is because they'd find no evidence of intelligent design in living things... and possibly evidence against. Which means all you'd do is show it to be a false theory, or a practically useless one.

I don't think anyone would really have an issue with a class that examines world religions.

The problem is when creationism is taught as *the* truth or *the* theory for "where we came from"...

World religion, where a class explores the various religions of the world would be exceedingly useful.

i won't respond to the main part of your post here since others already have and as far as finding sources (like that national geographic article secretmethod started to post) and unfortuanlty can't get into the read nitty gritty (genetic evidence and what not), i'll have to let people better versed in the details to discuss that stuff.

but my unicorn theory is a good example of creationism. not evolution. creationism is a belief that the world came about by and act of god. in my example, the supreme being (a unicorn with jock itch) decides to crap the earth out. how exactly would that be an example of evolution? or do you believe that the greek creation myth of the gods being born out of someone's head and creating the earth (i think that's the greek one, could be wrong) is also an example of evolution.

Athena burst forth form the forehead of Zeus. He had a bit of a headache and later an adult female in full armor came out. Cured up the headache, though.

Also, the Earth wasn't created, exactly. IIRC, the Earth is a stillborn god.... the dead sister of Zeus.

A ton, really, and it would be what?

I thought the Unicorn thiing was more evolution, you know, something evolving from something else. Creation is the belief that God created the world and those within.

As far as some of the other arguements, I don't know, I never saw monkey turn into a human, nor a g-string thingy turn into briefs.

But I do not wish to argue, so maybe we should agree that there is such a thing as evolution, which of course was created by God. Why not.

Thats what makes the whole argument so weird. The two schools of thought are not parallel. One is a general "how did the earth and the universe come about?" answer and the other is specifically a "how did the humans and other species on earth come about?" answer.

By the way prosequence, i hope you dont think evolution involves monkeys turning into humans just like that. It occurs by the monkey having a baby which is slightly different to itself. Multiply that by millions of generations over millions of years and the original monkey is a lot different to the modern day baby. Also by the way, it was apes, not monkeys...
(Not arguing, just educating)

Odin and his brothers first fashioned the earth (Midgard) from Ymir's flesh and, using his eyebrows, encircled it with a protective wall. Using Ymir's unbroken bones, they created mountains and from his teeth the rocks, boulders and stones. Using Ymir's blood, they created the sea and lakes. Using the dead giant's skull, they created the endless expanse of the sky and supported its corners with four dwarfs (Nordi, Surdi, Austri, Westri) from whose names we get the four main points of the compass; North, South, East and West. From Ymir's brains they created the clouds and from the sparks of Muspell, they created the sun, moon and stars to give light to the world. While the stars were fixed, the sun and moon were placed in golden chariots. Two riders named Day and Night were charged with guiding the sun and moon on their daily journey across the sky. They were pursued by a wolf intent on devouring them and from time to time, it did catch them in his mouth. Because of the cries of the terrified people of Midgard, the wolf released them, only to pursue them once again.

Clearly this is what should be taught in school, not that nonsense of evolution!

so when i describe home as being 'the ass end of the earth' i may not be all that far off... :D

the unicorn thing: an 'entity' creating the world by shitting it out its ass.
the god thing: an 'entity' creating the world by saying 'let there be yadda yadda.'

either way, they're both saying that a magical (read: fictional, imaginary) entity created the world/universe. they just used different orafices (methods) to do it. if the unicorn is evolution, than so is your god.

as to the rest of your post, of course you won't find a g-string turn into briefs (they're inanimate objects, duh) or monkeys turn into humans. first as someone (welshbyte) pointed out, humans are apes, not monkeys. we are incredibly sophisticated apes. but if you look back like millions of years, you will find a species which is common to both us and chimpanzees (as well as other members of the ape family). this species is a common ancestor to us both. just like you and cousin are not 100% identical you do have a common ancestor in your grandfather, who is also not 100% identical to you. we have primate A who is genetically similar and a common ancestor to primates X and Y (who are genetic cousins). unlike the example i used, rather than just being a couple generations from the common ancestor, we're separated by millions of years.

if you wish to have the idea that evolution was created by god, that's your choice. congrats, you're now an 'intelligent designist.' but there's still no evidence for such a belief.

i don't mean to sound rude or anything, but in your posts and this quoted ones last sentence you show that you are not only ignorant of the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it, but that you're willfully so. if you don't want to learn, fine. but don't sound suprised ("A ton, really, and it would be what?") when people tell you about it. your ignorance on the subject doesn't make it not exist. go out and find information about it. educate yourself. i'll even help start you out.

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/

i've never read through this site, but i've used about.com for other things and always found it to be pretty good. just do a google search for evolution (i'd avoid sites on the creation v. evolution argument for a little while until you've learned about evolution so that hopefully you would be able to tell the very biased from the 'really attempting to be objective' sites). the information is out there, you just have to be willing to find it.

i realize that challanging your beliefs may be scary. but as someones sig. says "if i had the choice between being the happy fool or the disappointed Socrates, i'd choose the latter."


edit: found this article on the site mentioned above that you should look at... misconceptions about evolution. http://biology.about.com/gi/dynamic/...nceptions.html

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

-Stephen Jay Gould

Dos mas:

Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.
Stephen Jay Gould

The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry.
Stephen Jay Gould

So much for faith. There is plenty of room for the "hand of God" within the theory of evolution.

no. not really. 'the hand of god' is not something that can be tested or used to predict future occurances. there is no evidence for god. the study of evolution is about finding out and understanding the mechanisms that led us from the first life form to the current diversity. now i don't see how it would be honest to say "hey, god made a jump from here to here."

I think what he means is that evolution being true does not exclude the possibility of God. I agree though, that discussing where God fits into evolution belongs in religious studies classes, not science classes.

I bet you've never seen an atom, or the far side of the moon. Perhaps we should teach people that matter is made of really small gumdrops and the moon is really just a perfectly aligned semi-circle. As long as we're just making shit up.

Science should be taught in science classes, religion should be taught in religion classes. What's the big deal? I'm sure all these creationists would throw a shitfit if evolution was suggested to be taught in a world religion class. Double standard.

Actually, the creationists would probably be fine with evolution being taught in a religion class.... it would tend to support their position. Educators in both religious studies and biology would probably be less than amused.

As for the "ton' of evidence for evolution... http://workbench.sdsc.edu/
That site allows you to import genetic data from a wide variety of species and use various bioinformation tools to compare them. The only tools available are built around the concept of comparing the genomes of evolved animals... but the creationists should be able to write their own tools and use the same data. Should be able to if it were a science, anyway.

There is some truth in your sarcasm. Atoms, as well as many other scientific rules are based on theories. Not proven, not factual, just predictable.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that evolutionists accept their theories to be true, not unlike the way creationists do. So instead of calling me names, try telling me why both philosophies can't be taught.

I didn't call you names, i stated some facts. If you feel they reflected poorly upon you, then maybe you should re-evaluate your position.

I'm not saying that they both shouldn't be taught. What i was getting at is that they can't be put on the same level in terms of backing by empirical evidence, importance or relevance. Part of science is constant reevaluation in light of emerging evidence. No scientist worth his/her salt will tell you that any theory is absolutely correct under all circumstances. Science is the process of creating useful constructs for explaining and predicting the way a certain system works. It exists because it is useful to know how things work.
Creationism has no functional use in this respect. The fact that there are myriad of equally valid creation stories is evidence of this lack of actual relevance to anything. I could claim that the world was created in a cloud of goblinfart, and it is equally as valid as the idea that god created the world in a week.

Science is based on a philosophy, creationism is not. I think creationism suffers from an absence of philosophy. Philosophy requires constant evaluation and critical thought and is based on logical reasoning. Creationism requires little more than the ability to read the bible and a good imagination. You could argue with an evolutionist, you can't argue with a creationist because there isn't anything to argue about. Either you believe it or you don't.

filtherton, i think he may have been referring to me saying he was showing his ignorance or something of that sort a few posts back.


prosequence, evolutionists hold evolution to be true because there is observable and circumstatial (probably not the best word) evidence for evolution. all creationists have is a book and a prayer. and yet creationists will claim that they're belief is hard fact while evolutionists will admit that everything about how evolution works has not been discovered 100%.

Really, I'll let the millions of people know, who believe in God, that their lives mean nothing, or should I say have no "relevance to anything".

philosophy - noun
1 [U] the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence, the use and limits of knowledge and the principles that govern and influence moral judgment:

With this definition, I do not understand how religion or concept of God does not fit into philosophy. So, I will smile politely and nod.

And God of course, oh and a little faith as well.... patience with ye old heathens and such....

Does anyone know if this debate ever comes up seriously outside of the US?

Anyways, I think it is important to say that public school cannot teach science from the viewpoint of students collecting evidence until they can figure things out for themselves. There is a good reason that the world's brightest minds have spent the last few hundred years arriving at our modern understanding of the universe. Things are complicated. At the level of basic education, it is best to just present the accepted viewpoint. I would guess that almost no public schools really get into enough detail in anything to be controversial.

Evolution, by the way, is not controversial in the sense that I'm using that word. There are no experts who believe in the versions of creationism which conflict with evolutionary ideas. The opinions of the uninformed public are irrelevant. The world does not work based on a vote of what people want to be true. We figure things out based on evidence, and all intelligent people who have evaluated that evidence have come to similar conclusions.

prosequence, I could also make an argument that you are not proven, but are merely a predictable figment of my imagination. The entire universe could be a fabrication of my mind. Certain philosophers have fun with that idea, but I think most of us can agree that it is not a very productive viewpoint. Science is about trying to compress all of the complexity of the world into a few simple rules. Its entire goal is to obtain predictibility. Anything "more" is not a part of science, whatever "more" may mean. Evolution is a part of science, whereas the only versions of creationism which conflict with evolution and actually have observable consequences are ruled out. Creationism therefore does not deserve any time in a science classroom.

The only relevence is imagined. I know many christians who take the biblical creation story with a grain of salt. It has zero effect on how they live their lives. This is not to say that religion has zero relevence.

Philosophy requires active participation, you absorb an idea, you evaluate the idea based on critical thought, and you either abandon the idea or embrace the idea. Embracing a completely unsupported prefab creation story as fact is no more philosphy than buying a sandwich is cooking.

Why is it "completely unsupported"?

Agreed, it should have a class of its own.

At Sunday school

Can the creationists please, before they come challenging the received, backed up conventional wisdom of the vast majority of the educated world, please, just for an hour or so... point that ultra-scepticism at the books they derive their own beliefs from.

Please? Is that too much to ask?

Fairy stories are fairy stories, evidence backed 'facts' are light years from creation stories.

How, in good faith, can any educated person deny evolution?

but tisonlyi... faith *always* trumps reason...

/end sarcasm

Science vrs Mythology

We are talking about the Norse creation theory correct? It states that the world as we see it is made up of the fragments of the dead giant Ymir--his blood forms the oceans, his shattered bones the mountains and rocks, his skullcap the sky above, and levitating fragments of his brain tissue form the clouds. Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page here.

Show me all the support. Show me the rational evidence that you have heard to support the idea that god created our planet in a week. A bunch of people believing something does not amount to support in any kind of critical sense.

I think that you are confusing the colloquial definition of a theory with a scientific definition. The colloquial definition might be "an uproven guess." A scientific theory is very different. CSflim started a thread on this topic a year ago here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=14114

This is a serious mischaracterization of evolutionists. Evolutionary scientists doing research derive falsifiable predictions from evolutionary theory and test those predictions. This is not "accepting their theories to be true". Instead, they expose evolutionary theory to the possibility of falsification every day.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it is true.

A more complicated explanation would have to descrive how metatheories (like evolutionary theory) are evaluated differently from mid-level theories (like the theory parental investment and sexual selection), which are evaluated differently from specific evolutionary hypotheses and predictions derived from those hypotheses.

The bottom line is that evolutionists expose their theory to falsification, creationists do not.

In my opinion....it boils down to this:

There is no "Fact" in science.....there is only theory.
Some theory is backed by so much observation, by seperate studies, as to be confirmed as extremely likely by a community based on peer review.

There is no "Fact" in religion....there is only myth.
Some myth holds the human psyche in its grasp in such a way, as to become individual reality.

To claim either as proven fact....it to close the mind to possible future understanding, and defeats the very foundation of scientific thought.

Just My Opinion....and certainly not factual.

because it's only support is people claiming a 4-5,000 year old book as evidence. when the people who wrote the book weren't even there to view it, and the book has 2 different stories on how it happened.

Once again... theory versus theory, just because you don't like one, doesn't mean you can dismiss it. It's great that a lot of you think you are apes or whatever, I think that is wonderful, kind of makes me feel good knowing that I'm a creation of God and not an animal. So we both should be happy. Anyways, back on topic, Creation is a widely accepted theory, possibly more so than evolution... so, why does it not make sense to have it taught in schools.

I think the issue with it becoming part of public education, is in the inherent religious nature of the theory. The evolutionary theory at least, can tie in to scientific exploration and lead to a further grasp of mathematics, history and such.Creationism would need to tie in to, well, religion, which is not taught in public school for good reason.

Considering how few differences there are between humans and apes, God must be pretty lazy. Even a pigeon is physiologically almost the same as a human.

Interesting debate. I'd like to add a few penny's worth, if I may.
"Theory" is not the same thing as "theory". When Creationsists go to school boards and complain how evolution is just a "theory", they are trying to pull one over on you. When a scientist talks about a theory, they mean something very different from an English Professor talking about a 'theory'. Scientific theory, according to Popper, must be "falsifiable". That is, Scientific theory must directly or indirectly predictions which can be measured. This usually results in Technology, the application of the predictions of Theory.

Examples:
The computer that you are using to view this message is "proof" that Maxwell's Equations and Electromagnitism are good Theories.
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria are good examples of microevolution. Pharmacutical Companies use microevolution all the time to create robust strains of protein producing bacteria.

But that's just the thing. It's NOT an accepted theory. The vast (>90%) of scientists will tell you that Creationism is not a scientific theory (it fails to make useful predictions). It is a widely accepted _Story_.

Sure, they can be taught side by side. In a philosophy classroom. Creationism has no place in a science classroom at any primary or secondary school. Sure, kids should learn about creationism as an example of something that _isn't_ science, but there is no reason to do it at such a young age. It will just confuse them. Similarly, no one teaches imaginary numbers to third graders. There's no reason to teach about the philosophy of science in grade school (well, maybe in the last two years of highschool).

They're not just predictable. They're VERY predictable. Around the turn of the century (1800-1900), chemists and physicists were very intersted in the study of energy and heat. The science of Thermodynamics was born. For a given body, there seemed to be a nearly linear relation between the amound of energy of the body and the temperature of the body. Many theories were made and tested. Why was this relationship so linear? Why did this relationship change at extremely high and low temeratures? Einstein's analysis of a solid as a collection of "Atoms" resulted in one of the first theories of matter that matched very well with experimental obersvations in Specific Heats. While Scientists had been kicking around the idea for a while, it was this study of specifc heats and other areas of interest in Thermodynamics that really cemented the validity of the Atomic Hypothesis. The Atomic Hypothesis still survives to this day. Althrough the revolutions in Quantum physics and High energy particle physics have altered our understanding of what Atoms are, the fundamental assumption of descrete mass still stands. The Atomic Hypothesis is probably up there with Maxwell's equations as the most well documented and well-"proven" Scientific Theory.

Now then, I told that little story so that hopefully people have a better understanding of what science is. It very easily to talk about Popper and Falsifiability, but it's almost too academic and meaningless. In the end, Science is about coming up with ways to explain our observations of the world. Each explanation is called a Theory. But one should also notice something about these Theories. And hopefully it was evident in that story I told. A good Scientific Theory doesn't just explain one thing. A good Scientific Theory has to fit with the Other Scientific Theories. Think of Science as a big jigsaw puzzle. Holding a single piece in your hand is irrelevant. You have to find the piece that fits in the right place.
Evolution is not a good Scientific Theory just because we dug up some bones. Evolution isn't a good Scientific Theory just because we know something about DNA. Evolution isn't a good Scientific Theory just because we can breed donkies and horses.
Evolution is a good Scientific Theory because of ALL of these things. Evolution is good because the puzzle piece fits. It explains all these phenomenon and gives us further insights. It is Elegant.

AGAIN .... not sure I agree
 

Basically I think that it is important that we DEBATE in school.... we should debate Creation VS evolution the sme way we SHOULD debate IF there is a GOD, and WHY we think so... Let expose thse who cannot prove what they beleive and those who cannot beleive what seems to be self evident... like evolution....


Darwin and his freinds forgot one of the most important statistical realities.... Correlation is not necessarily causation.... Evolution therefore is still only a theory to explain correlant facts.

as someone else already said, creation is a story, and it's not even that widely accepted once you get past fundamentalists. back when i went to hebrew school and participated in my synagogue, i didn't know a single person who believed that the story of genesis was true. i believe even the pope said that it was a metaphor.

and this entire thread has been about why we shouldn't have it taught in schools... go back and read it again if you need to.

Creation isn't JUST a story. Wether you believe that or not. Just like evolution is Just a story evolutionists tell. Why not tell both stories in school and let them be the ones who decide which they want to believe.

Umm, you contradicted yourself. If creation isn't just a story then why do you refer to it as one of "both stories"?

if evolution is just a story, then i'd have to say that means that everything is 'just a story.'

i'm sorry if you can't see the difference between a really old myth with nothing to back it up other than people saying 'look, this really old book says it's true' and something that is observable, predictable and follows all the rules and testing that goes through scientific theories, then i don't think there's any point in continueing this.

i realize you probably find comfort in your stories. it's scary to look at change. and if you don't want to, that's fine. just don't try cramming your stories down my kids throats when they're in school.

No.
As far as I know noone who is considered "sane" thinks about creationism to be taught in school here in germany.

It may be a good fairy tale, but it lacks a sinlge bit of evidence.

Well, over here in England the view is the same. Creationism went out of the window with Darwin's book. Granted there are plenty of holes in evolutionary theory, but the evidence for it is very, very strong. And yet both arguments have their limits

I personally find the concept of directed, instantly perfect creation unappealing. It is an inelegant solution and does not fit the facts of evolution.

It is a fact that gradual changes in the DNA structure of a chain of individuals can cause physical change over time. Such mutations can be seen clearly, the change of colouring in Moths in industrialised areas being one such example.

However, evolution has to start somewhere. There needs to be a basic foundation for future mutations, but I feel that this is a seperate issue. Evolution does not explain first-generation creation.

In order for life to fit into an ever-changing world, there must be adaptation.

I do not wish to deny the core argument in this issue; that of creation versus evolution. It simply occurs to me that the supposed nature of God (Gods, Spirit etc, whatever you want to call a Prime Cause) has been slightly overlooked.

First-Order creation may very well have taken place. However from then on, constant changes in the nature of the world neccesitate constant adaptation. To have God tinkering in His/Her/It's own creations would be to deny the supposed perfectness of God, as it suggests the creation of something flawed. A self-perfecting mechanism, when viewed from this angle, is indeed a materstroke. Creating life that then has the ability to change and adapt to its own environment without outside help is an incredibly elegant solution to both problems.

well..if we are gonna go to the treat all theories the same...can we also include the egyptian theory of how life began (ancient egyptian)..Ra masturbates and the world is formed. If Creationism had any solid evidence that would hold up to peer review I would say teach away. Yet... no creationist paper I know of has withstood the rigorous testing of the scientific community. Saying that their is flaws in evolution does not mean that it needs to be disregarded..that's like saying Einstein proved Newton completely wrong...

The most I've seen creationists do is poke holes in Evolutionary theory...Sometimes they even try to point out flaws that don't exist.
(ex. entropy...entropy does not apply for this is not a closed system.)
.They try to make it seem like topic that scientists are divided on and arguing themselves..In truth we are arguing about Evolution..but for the most part we accept some of the basic principles...

Creationism isn't a theory. A theory is backed by evidence. Calling creationism a theory over and over will never make it a theory, it will only speak to your committal to dogma over reality. That's fine, people do it all the time, it's just another example of what happens when you mix organized religion and people who lack the desire to think critically. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being a creationist. The problem is when you insist that creationism is equal to a scientific theory when clearly it is not.

Until you have some evidence to back up creationism that isn't faith based, it is just a story. Honestly, if you can't be bothered to make the cognitive distinction between theories that are supported by more than decades of critical thought and "theories" that are supported by a few pages in a 2000 year old book, than why do you even bother arguing?

Though i do think it would be interesting to teach them both and let the people decide, only because i think creationism would be roundly rejected by anyone who wasn't completely convinced that accepting evolution would damn them to hell.

Behind door number one: A theory supported by many years of scientific scrutiny.
Behind door number two: A "theory" based on a few pages from a two thousand year old book.

America, you decide.

don't be a baka
evolution doesn't have to mean one animal transforming into another. it's not fking xmen.
simple comparison of rRNA sequences between different invertebrates will show a large % similarity in genotype. ability to SEE the change doesn't mean jack.
:)

so called scientific 'theories' have been proven right over and over and over again. why do you think medicine works? is it because you prayed to God?

your 5 senses - including visual - can only 'sense' a minimal part of the diversity of life. not seeing it does not mean it's not there.
that's why we do experiments, make hypotheses, use microscopes, fluourescent DNA hybridisations - Bible doesn't mention that....why not?

look up the scientific definition of a theory...evolution meets it. Creationism to me would fall more under hypothesis..an unproven guess. I promise you the minute a paper supporting creationism ends up in a reputable journal (ie. science or Nature) and stands the rigourous testing of the scientific community, I will call it a theory able to stand next to evolution.

Evolution has a strong support in science and although flaws do exist. They are not flaws that disprove the entire theory. We need to refine the theory.

I think saying that you are not an animal is a bit egotistical...look at your DNA it matches almost completely with a chimp...also the question is, why do you (assuming male) have a appendix? It is an uneeded organ..even better why do you have a tail bone? These are remanents or what we have come from.

You guys are too much, close minded and unwilling to accept another point of view... Darwin thumpers... insistant on others conversion to your own beliefs. I was once told "Never argue with the ignorant, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience." and only now do I see the truth in that. I will leave you "intelects" to mentally masturbate this topic amongst yourselves, since you are not willing to consider anything I have to say. Rest easy, I will not read or enter this thread again, march on crusaders, march on.

heh, that's really amusing. you've shown yourself to be the ignorant and close minded one. you see, you've closed your mind to the possibility that creation has no place in the science classroom. i haven't closed my mind to that. quite the opposite. i've discredited its validity as a scientific theory and determined that it DOES NOT BELONG being taught as science.

ignorance is ignoring evidence even when it's danza-slapping you in the face. you seem pretty insistant on converting us to your point of view that creation is a valid theory. we've given you arguments against it and evidence for evolution. yet you choose to turn a blind eye to it. that, my friend, is willful ignorance. if there is a god, you've chosen to take his gift of free will and squander it by accepting an ancient book whose authorship and reliability is questionable.

and to call us 'darwin thumpers' is kinda dumb... we're not thumping darwin. we're thumping sciences current best theory to explain how we ended up as we are today. while you choose to not even consider science (yes, science, the wonderful system that also brought you television, computers and halo 2!).

but it's a good thing you're leaving us to mentally masturbate... we wouldn't want you to go blind. :suave:

/hope i haven't stepped over the line...

edit: i would love it if you could give us one shred of evidence ("it's in the bible cause jeebus told me so" doesn't count) that points towards creationism... show us that you're not the mentally masturbating us into a "darwin thumpin' frenzy!" :lol:

Is this thing on?

Creationism is "completely unsupported" as far as a claim to being a scientific theory, because no practitioners or advocates of "creation theory" have ever offered any general predictions about the way the world or organism should (and should NOT) be. Without any predictive power, we can't go look at the facts available and go "Ah, see? This is exactly as the creationists predicted... one point for their side." or if we find something that would be improbable in a created world say "Ah, see, this is far too common for creationism to be correct."

It's not falsifiable, which is a requirement for a hypothesis --> scientific theory.

Creationism is "completely unsupported" because it is not outlined in a sufficently rigorous manner to claim any fact as evidence.

Let me say this very simply. Multiple people have posted links to PHYSICAL AND VERIFIABLE evidence for evolution. You have posted no physical and verifiable evidence. What is difficult to understand about this?

As someone who fully believes in a higher power, i.e. God, behind creation, all I'm asking for from you is to show physical and verifiable evidence - like we have done for evolution - that life came to be in a short instant of time.

it's alright...others will see this thread and laugh at your bakayaro-ness.

run away then, since you have no substantial arguments.

power of knowledge PWNZ j00

show a sinlge piece of evidence for creationism

Look Up?

It had to come from somewhere. How long it took is another question. Personally I'm all for a Prime Cause, but instantaneous creation? I think not. Much more elegant to have things evolve.

... which is of course the entire bloody problem in a nutshell. :hmm:

Anyone else think of this after reading the above post: "I'm taking my ball and going home!"

i don't like the idea of a "Prime Cause." personally i think it's much more likely that man created god than the otherway around. but i don't know if there is or is not a 'supreme being' of one sort or another than started it all. maybe an old white man wiht a long beard snapped his fingers and there was the big bang. and the universe expanded, the planets formed, and we evolved from goo out of luck because he wanted to see what would happen.

the important thing is though, you can teach evolution withoiut mentioning a Prime Cause and it doesn't change a thing. it's like leaving out the pulishers info page in the front of a book. we know the title and the story, just not who published it. it's an unverifiable preamble to the story, but it doesn't change teh story one way or the other.

creationism, on the other hand, requires the big guy to be there and directly responsible for all of it. but he didn't even so much as leave us 'god wuz heer' spray painted on a rock. and without him, there is no story.

oh, i assume you mean Prime Cause as i sorta explained up above. not as in 'intelligent design'. i view prime cause as more of a diest view while ID is just modified creationism to try to get it into the schools.

Now, is that an eohippus, a mesohippus, a merichippus, or an actual dead equus your smiley is beating there? :D

Or is it a jesus horse?

//playlist: Roger Miller - You Can't Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd

I know this is a couple days old now, but I've just finished reading right thru the whole thing and I have to say it was an excellent discussion. I really enjoyed reading that :)

Prosequence felt he could justafiably call EVERYONE ELSE in this discussion ignorant and close-minded, as I did not see a single post which supported his idea (that idea being that evolution and creationism are both equally theories/not theories/whatever). I have to say to Prosequence that he is the one who appears close-minded. I have much respect for someone who will stand up for thier own beleifs, but maybe in this case Prosequence would like to make some effort to rectify this blind single-mindedness, as it's very unbecoming.

And I'm STILL waiting for someone to provide this large list of physical, testable evidence for creationism. Anyone? Anyone at all, please? I would very much like to see this list.

Ding! I'm sure any christian person would tell you that this is what happened for the Greek, Indian, Norse, Japanese, Maori and Incan gods and systems of gods (and the rest of course). All have equal evidence (none/very little), so I find it highly likely that the Christian idea of God is simply another fabrication created to help people come to terms with stuff that happens.

My opinion, no offense intended to anyone who holds these beleifs.

Lak

Debate is good. However, religion has no place in a science class. I have no issue with looking at the theory of evolution from all angles. Any good theory requires it to be tested.

Creationism if it appears in public schools at all should be relegated to courses in religious study. Let's compare and contrast the judeo/christian creation myth with all the other creation myths...

Apples with apples.

I think creationism's value is more in challenging evolutionary beliefs and putting forward the reasonableness of the idea of design requiring a Designer. You don't see design and order come out of an explosion (ie Big Bang) and I would not dismiss it so lightly as charlatanism - creationists pose serious questions for evolutionists. And sorry 101001010, evolution is not fact, but a theory. While changes from natural selection do occur, natural selection cannot explain the origin of species.

AMEN! All or nothing.

Leo... you've shifted gears on me... To talk about intelligent design is a whole other matter when compared to the creation myths found in the bible.

While I still find the concept of intelligent design high improbable I am willing to allow a small amount of "wiggle room" on some concepts of intelligent design. Creationists love this because it can allow for evolution within the concept of a created universe.

Of course in my theory of intelligent design the Creator set it in motion then went on to another project. Our Universe is collecting dust on the creators craft shelf and we just have to hope like hell that the missus isn't going to toss us in the bin on one of her cleaning binges...

Doesn't really leave a lot of room for God.