Should 'creationism' be taught in school?

john c0nnor said:

See, this is a very common miscunseption, in the beginning of genises it states that the earth was "void of form" not that there was nothing. this leads me to belive that the dinosaurs and the earth were around long before biblical times and the reason the earth was void of form was becus of a catachlismeck event probably the war between god and satan, and that the "comet" that wiped out the dinosaurs was infact satan him self falling to earth.

So if this is true then god created the dinosaurs long before(as in millons of billons of years) genises 1:1.

If evolution if fact then please explain how in the big bang: nothing just an endless completely empty void can randomly become all this.

@ jolene: your post seirously offened me and I'm shure tons of other members.

@ feign: see above. and BTW the so called "christions" in that video were wack jobs and some of the stuff they were doing was down right demonic IMHO.

Click to expand...

Did you make an account just to be a troll?
Evolution≠The Big Bang
Evolution≠Abiogenesis
Evolution=Evolution

Hopefully that makes enough sense.

Åzurε said:

Do I detect a mentality of superiority? Watch what you say....

Click to expand...

Of course! Because as an Adult whom can discern fact from fairytale; I'm quite obviously superior ;D

Luck said:

Did you make an account just to be a troll?
Evolution≠The Big Bang
Evolution≠Abiogenesis
Evolution=Evolution

Hopefully that makes enough sense.

Click to expand...

No I am not a troll(not on PC any ways). what made you think that I was?

Ok ok I worded my last post badly but still can you please answer that for me?

pokejungle said:

UM LUCK, HELLO?! THAT IS JOHN CONNER! HE HOLDS THE SURVIVAL OF MANKIND IN HIS HANDS!

Click to expand...

Can he stop all the crap going on about 2012?

NarutoActor said:

I would be fine with that if they kept evolution out of class. If you are going to teach something, show both sides of the story.

Click to expand...

It's a common misconception that there are "two sides" to the evolution debate. There are people who believe in neither evolution nor Christian creationism. It is also a mistake to think that because you have an opposing view that you are somehow on the same level as the view you oppose. Evolution has tons of evidence behind it. Creationism has a fan club. No one would take you seriously if you wanted the creation story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught in school because it doesn't carry any weight. You just haven't realized that's what you're arguing for.

txteclipse said:

They should teach everything or nothing. That's my take.

By the way, science is still very young. People who call anything "scientific fact" in this day and age will be laughed at down the road. In the grand scheme of what can be known, we haven't so much as removed a single molecule from the surface. The future will prove us barbarians.

Click to expand...

No one laughs at Socrates and other proto-scientists because they made mistakes and thought they were right. They're regarded as rather intelligent because of the methods they used and the conclusions they reached despite their limited knowledge of the universe.

john c0nnor said:

See, this is a very common miscunseption, in the beginning of genises it states that the earth was "void of form" not that there was nothing. this leads me to belive that the dinosaurs and the earth were around long before biblical times and the reason the earth was void of form was becus of a catachlismeck event probably the war between god and satan, and that the "comet" that wiped out the dinosaurs was infact satan him self falling to earth.

So if this is true then god created the dinosaurs long before(as in millons of billons of years) genises 1:1.

If evolution if fact then please explain how in the big bang: nothing just an endless completely empty void can randomly become all this.

@ jolene: your post seirously offened me and I'm shure tons of other members.

@ feign: see above. and BTW the so called "christions" in that video were wack jobs and some of the stuff they were doing was down right demonic IMHO.

Click to expand...

Why should there be those Christians who only believe in parts of the bible, instead of the most literal sense. For that matter, why are there different Christian sects?

Having your own theory like that doesn't help to explain evolutionism/creationism, it only serves to further your own views.

The proper way Christians have been discounting evolutionism is by saying that God is testing his people so as to see if they would stray from the path of enlightenment... Or w/e.

The funny thing is Science started off as Natural Philosophy... Something much more innocent, and had God more in mind as well.

However to that end... Why is it that crationists have to believe in the existence in creationism (as per the bible). Could they not accept the fact that some things are just not right in it. Or for that matter, would their faith be any more deminished, if that cow they were eating came into fruition as opposed to being evolved?

In the end, what difference does it make? I'm by no means advocating that creationism is just as correct as evolutionism. I am trying to show the absurdity of the argument as a whole. And would point out Occam's Razor in this case.

That is to say, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one: thus evolutionism makes the most sense.

I like this method of responding. Stylistic plagiarism time!

Scientists still find out new things and try to disprove evolution. It wouldn't be science if they didn't try to disprove something. You're right about that. Unchallenged science isn't science at all. I would like to see some studies like this, but honestly I don't know what to look for. Care to pass a couple of links along?

Right here I think Unfortunately, my time is limited. I'm not running, but I'll get back to this tomorrow or something.

They deal with different things. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, and evolution deals with the biodiversity. You're absolutely correct here. I should have phrased this differently, but if you lump in no-macroevolution ideas with creationism and origins-by-chance with evolution, which many people do, you get the spirit of what I was trying ( and, admittedly failing) to communicate.

Every fossil is considered transitional, but you can look at the various fossils in human evolution. All fossils in this category I have seen are either very much human, very much not, or relatively easily disproven.

Yeah. About 99% of species on Earth are extinct. We were just lucky and got good genes. "It seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent." -Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution

Unrelated- but inspired by- to Luck's responses, and from a more mathematical point of view, it's hard to understand where evolution makes sense. I think that evolution should be taught in schools- At the very least, it offers a non-creation alternative for those who desire it, but I also think showing the flaws that exist would be a definite improvement. Now flame away, 'cause I'm going to bed.

EDIT: geez, I took a long time to write that. One last thing-

However to that end... Why is it that creationists have to believe in the existence in creationism (as per the bible). Could they not accept the fact that some things are just not right in it. Or for that matter, would their faith be any more deminished, if that cow they were eating came into fruition as opposed to being evolved?- Feign Biblical compromise would nullify the entire thing. You keep assuming that the Bible is fiction without checking the evidence for it's reality or it's content, and as such you say things like this as if they were no big deal. Infallibility is a facet of God's nature, and the Bible is stated to be inspired by Him. If a part of it were untrue (I have seen NO data that outright disproves anything the Bible says is true), that would mean that God is untrustworthy, and that the entire Bible is null and void. That's why it's such a big deal. G'night again.

Yes, but it shouldn't be based on one religion. It should just suggest the idea that some higher being could have created the universe.

It always saddens me to see fellow atheists being so intolerant of religion. I don't know why so many people have this obsession with making sure that everyone sees things exactly as they do.

I don't think creationism should be taught in schools because, to me, that implies indoctrination. However, I have no problems with teaching religion in general; it's a huge part of human history, it's integral to our culture, and it's extremely important in order to understand why society is the way it is. Exploring what sort of things people of a given religion believe helps us to gain a better understanding of why they act in certain ways and how society changed into what it is today.

NarutoActor, if you're expecting to find fossils of ancient bacteria and jellyfish, you're outta luck. It's nearly impossible to fossilize soft-bodied organism. And even the best scientist knows gaps will exist in the fossil record, caused by erosion, volcanic eruptions, or even a particular organism that just didn't fossilize.

I just kinda skimmed through this thread, so correct me if this has been addressed, but why do people still consider being a evolutionist and being a Christian mutually exclusive to each other? I'm an evolutionist and a Christian and I don't feel like I'm betraying either of those identities by being the other as well. The bible was never meant to be taken literally, and almost all of the Book of Genesis is nothing more than a collection of Hebrew mythology with no basis in history.

I still believe creationism should be taught in schools...in a literature class. In terms of literary merit, the Judeo-Christian creation story is just as interesting as the stories of Greco-Roman mythology or Native American legend. Anyone who tries to pass Creationism off as true science is just lying to themselves. >_<

Neither needs to be taught; life is easier for all of us if nobody has to feel so inclined or pressured as to actually believe anything not relevant to their own personal existence.

Jolene said:

I disagree. That would confuse children. Also, teachers are bias.

Creationism should be taught in the context that "Some Christians believe that..." Evolution, on the other hand, should be taught as fact - because it is undeniable fact.

Click to expand...

Ha, where is the original one, then? Can't prove the whole story, can't be fact...

Simply put, religion and science are both wrong.

.Fenris said:

Ha, where is the original one, then? Can't prove the whole story, can't be fact...

Simply put, religion and science are both wrong.

Click to expand...

Some numbers recur infinitely. Just because we can't calculate the end of the number doesn't mean the number doesn't exist. Stop being a ****.

Yusshin said:

Public schools should teach neither creationism or evolution, as to avoid angry individuals.

Click to expand...

...evolution is fact. It doesn't matter if it creates "angry individuals"; they'll have to let go of their fairy-tales sooner or later.