Teaching Creationism in public schools

I believe the objective of teaching the Evolution theory is to not teach creationism. God is not allowed in any form, evolution or Origin of Life.

Btw, I am not condoning teaching creationism, I'm just not totally convinced of the Origins being taught now, or even the existence of man in the evolutionary tree as being taught now. Simply said, I don't know.



David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

• Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

• My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4
  
  
  

I. L. Cohen is a mathematician, researcher and author -- a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America. In his book, Darwin was Wrong -- A Study in Probabilities, Cohen writes:

• In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. 1
  
  ...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. 2
  
  ...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. 3
  
  …every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. 4
  
  ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. 5

• When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5

H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:

• In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.6

This thread started as 'should creationism be taught', and I would say the majority of people here say no. Because it has no logic and can't be proven.

But they teach something now that can't be proven. And they teach it as fact.

If you took a poll of students how many would be convinced Evolution or Origins taught now is factual and true? Most I dare say. Why is this better than creationism?

More scientific? Removes faith from the equation? I think it merely replaces one for another.

Stoney McFried said:

If any of this bullshit makes it into any schools my kids are in, I will pull them out and home school them.It is NOBODY'S prerogative but mine to decide whether or not religion is a part of my child's life, until that child reaches the age of reason.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! Religion is a choice, it shouldn't be mandatory.

Spitzered said:

Well as far as I know the Evolutionary Theory is just that, a theory.

Search for proof is on going of course, and will continue.

But it is being taught as absolute truth, one could almost say it has become 'faith based'. The major advocates can conclude that it simply makes more sense. Mathematically it is almost impossible for it to happen. (if someone can link sites proving the mathematical possibilities, please do so).

The main arguments against religion is the people involved in religion and practices and history of organized religion, rather than the basic tenets.

But the theory of evolution certainly does not explain humans. Why would we lose all the basic life saving attributes apes have to gain the higher brain functions? Like we lost the ability to run as fast, climb trees, more susceptible to weather such as heat and cold weather so now we need to be covered? We would have to evolve in spite of our environment instead of adjusting to it.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but you may have the cart before the horse. I think we became the pussies of the natural world because we gave them up. in other words, I think we lost our ability to run as fast as the apes because we didn't need it any more, we gave up our tolerance to cold because we figured out how to make fire and so on.

But really, the apes we have today weren't the same that they were back in the day. According to evolution, we didn't evolve from the apes we see in the zoo, they were different also. and they weren't necessarily all that fast or strong. Australopithecus for example wasn't all that strong, all that fast or even all that smart. They just hung out, ate roots and climbed trees to run away from other animals that were out to fuck 'em up.

hom36rown said:

spontaneous generation or not, natural selection is still valid

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that those who criticize spontaneous generation are the ones who believe in something that just is and exists without any creator or start whatsoever...

Spitzered said:

This thread started as 'should creationism be taught', and I would say the majority of people here say no. Because it has no logic and can't be proven.

But they teach something now that can't be proven. And they teach it as fact.

If you took a poll of students how many would be convinced Evolution or Origins taught now is factual and true? Most I dare say. Why is this better than creationism?

More scientific? Removes faith from the equation? I think it merely replaces one for another.

Click to expand...

to be honest I think a lot of people who favor creation favor it because it's easier to understand. Evolution is essentially part of how the earth changes as a whole. You have to really read a lot to understand how this or that happens. With creation, it just happened because god thought it was a good idea and there we go. You don't have to understand complex biology, and the people that wrote it didn't even have the slightest idea about it.

Evolution can bee seen like a puzzle. You look at the puzzle and see that a few pieces are missing, you can tell what the piece you need looks like and you don't have to see it. it is simply obvious that there is a puzzle piece that looks like X and it will have some yellow on this corner, and a little red here and a line going through it (or whatever the missing piece looks like).

But as mentioned, gravity is a theory, but we have used that theory and put satellites in orbit, men on the moon and so on. A theory cannot be proven, this is true, but in order for something to be a theory, it cannot be dis-proven either.

We use the theory of evolution when making medicine (much like physicists use the theory of gravity to put things in orbit...) especially antibiotics. If we don't figure in how things evolve, our medicine would become useless.

Now creation on the other hand has a few things against it. First and foremost, when much of (if not all) the old testament (where creation is) was written, the stories had been verbally handed down for generations before being written down. Second and equally as important, when it was written these people had no idea of germs, bacteria or pathogens other than "something makes us sick, don't touch the sick person". They didn't know about biology, carbon dating or geology. So really the belief in creationism comes from stories that were told for generations before being written, and told by people who knew very little about their world and all the beasties in it.

cleatis said:

.....what will stop religious nuts from using government funds to indoctrinate?

Click to expand...

don't you see you are advocating censorship and your reasoning is based on a worst case scenario. this is exactly the sort of thinking that keeps the mj prohibition in place and saddles us with a multitude of nonsensical laws to protect us from ourselves.

Evolution is what takes the education to understand. So even assuming that I agree with creation beliefs or at least tolerate them, I don't see why it needs to be on the education docket.

Click to expand...

it is merely information. these religious fantasies are culturally accepted beliefs that we are all exposed to at an early age, whether we like it or not. doesn't it make more sense to have these bizarre theories laid out in the neutral atmosphere of reason than the emotionally charged venues of the religious fanatics. if the christian right really thought the matter through, this is the last place they would want their message to be heard. without the fanaticism of a thousand believers pressuring the young to believe as they do, their rhetoric is more easily seen as the fantasy it really is. the basic concepts behind both evolutionist and creationist thought are really very simple, but when when the proofs are compared side by side, as they would be in that neutral setting, the rational mind cannot help but see the fallacies involved in those culturally accepted mythologies.

undertheice said:

don't you see you are advocating censorship and your reasoning is based on a worst case scenario. this is exactly the sort of thinking that keeps the mj prohibition in place and saddles us with a multitude of nonsensical laws to protect us from ourselves.

it is merely information. these religious fantasies are culturally accepted beliefs that we are all exposed to at an early age, whether we like it or not. doesn't it make more sense to have these bizarre theories laid out in the neutral atmosphere of reason than the emotionally charged venues of the religious fanatics. if the christian right really thought the matter through, this is the last place they would want their message to be heard. without the fanaticism of a thousand believers pressuring the young to believe as they do, their rhetoric is more easily seen as the fantasy it really is. the basic concepts behind both evolutionist and creationist thought are really very simple, but when when the proofs are compared side by side, as they would be in that neutral setting, the rational mind cannot help but see the fallacies involved in those culturally accepted mythologies.

Click to expand...

It's amazing. What I've noticed is that when Vi asked if creationism should be taught in public schools everyone automatically assumed he meant teaching it in science classes. Clearly there is no science in creationism. It is faith. Though being faith, there is no way to tie it with Evolution.

I think the right's biggest failure has been that like the sadistic inquisition of the middle ages they have failed to adapt their message to the times. Instead of realizing that maybe if they found a way to combine Evolution and Creationism they would have a stronger religion that was more viable.

Faith is the belief in something, and the basic underlying tenant of Christianity, Islam and Judaism isn't Creationism. It's belief in God. By choosing the argument that Creationism must be true the Right has limited itself to becoming increasingly irrelevant.

As a non-practicing Catholic I only find it offensive that the church has ignored science, and can only be said to be actively marching against it. It opposes stem cell research, and opposes evolution. This is not the action of a rational mind, but of one deluded by the desire to be "right" at every one else's expense.

Perhaps, if they adapted their religion to include room for Evolution they would find that the number of people that are turning their backs on organized religion and marching to their own beliefs would fall, but who knows.

After the number of incidents where priests were molesting children, who would want to entrust their children to a priest?

Who would want to trust a religion that obviously failed to learn its lesson from its defeat at the hands of Galileo, Kepler and Newton?

It is hard to advocate for an organized religion that has shown that it has been hijacked, not by the rational, but those that are more willing to engage in the kind of fanaticism that results in societies like Iran, the USSR during the Purges.

As far as teaching Creationism in school. There is a place for it easily, but the fact is that if it was taught in Mythology the Christians would be up in arms about where it is being taught.

I think some one said that Creationism and Evolution should be taught side by side in a neutral manner. I can only agree, because in the end a rational mind would reject Creationism and embrace Evolution. This is the failure of the left. They want to coddle and protect their children instead of ensuring that their children can stand on their two own feet and feel pride in the fact that they can say, "I think, therefore I AM!"

cleatis said:

to be honest I think a lot of people who favor creation favor it because it's easier to understand.

Click to expand...

the details of religion are just as complex as those of science.

a secular view of the world shows mankind as the animal he is. it leaves us feeling small and alone, a relatively unimportant piece of the cosmic puzzle. religion (especially the abrahamic creeds), on the other hand, places humanity in a superior position in relation to the rest of the natural world. it gives its believers a meaningful place in the grand scheme and a feeling of being loved (or at least recognized) by something greater than ourselves.

the faithful are not necessarily fools, but those who desire love over truth and order over the chaos that surrounds them.

TheBrutalTruth said:

It's amazing. What I've noticed is that when Vi asked if creationism should be taught in public schools everyone automatically assumed he meant teaching it in science classes. Clearly there is no science in creationism. It is faith.

Click to expand...

i noticed the same thing. though each attempts to supplant the other, they each come from different places and can't really even be considered in the same sphere. religion's biggest mistake is the attempt to prove its creationist theories. these are matters of faith and do not require nor can they stand up to the objective eye of critical reason.

I think the right's biggest failure has been that like the sadistic inquisition of the middle ages they have failed to adapt their message to the times. Instead of realizing that maybe if they found a way to combine Evolution and Creationism they would have a stronger religion that was more viable.

Click to expand...

the basis and the appeal of religious faith (once again, i speak mainly of the abrahamic creeds) is the unchanging nature of god and his word. religion cannot afford to admit its failures or it risks losing the timeless quality that its adherents demand. it cannot afford to adapt its message or it proves its own tenets to be false.

undertheice said:

i noticed the same thing. though each attempts to supplant the other, they each come from different places and can't really even be considered in the same sphere. religion's biggest mistake is the attempt to prove its creationist theories. these are matters of faith and do not require nor can they stand up to the objective eye of critical reason.

the basis and the appeal of religious faith (once again, i speak mainly of the abrahamic creeds) is the unchanging nature of god and his word. religion cannot afford to admit its failures or it risks losing the timeless quality that its adherents demand. it cannot afford to adapt its message or it proves its own tenets to be false.

Click to expand...

By failing to adapt, doesn't it prove the same thing Ice?

TheBrutalTruth said:

It's amazing. What I've noticed is that when Vi asked if creationism should be taught in public schools everyone automatically assumed he meant teaching it in science classes. Clearly there is no science in creationism. It is faith. Though being faith, there is no way to tie it with Evolution.

"

Click to expand...

The people who are pushing for creationism to be taught in schools, want it to be taught in science class. The argument that it should be taught in a seperate class like comparative religions, or myths something like that is not what 98% of creationists want to be taught in school. This a good documentry on the subject NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS

TheBrutalTruth said:

By failing to adapt, doesn't it prove the same thing Ice?

Click to expand...

no, by refusing to adapt it denies secular wisdom and essentially calls science a fraud. such tactics will always be accepted by a certain number of true believers.

undertheice said:

don't you see you are advocating censorship and your reasoning is based on a worst case scenario. this is exactly the sort of thinking that keeps the mj prohibition in place and saddles us with a multitude of nonsensical laws to protect us from ourselves.

it is merely information. these religious fantasies are culturally accepted beliefs that we are all exposed to at an early age, whether we like it or not. doesn't it make more sense to have these bizarre theories laid out in the neutral atmosphere of reason than the emotionally charged venues of the religious fanatics. if the christian right really thought the matter through, this is the last place they would want their message to be heard. without the fanaticism of a thousand believers pressuring the young to believe as they do, their rhetoric is more easily seen as the fantasy it really is. the basic concepts behind both evolutionist and creationist thought are really very simple, but when when the proofs are compared side by side, as they would be in that neutral setting, the rational mind cannot help but see the fallacies involved in those culturally accepted mythologies.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. and it even sounds like a good idea. But you nor anyone else on this planet can convince me that places like Kansas, Utah Texass and Missouri are just going to put the creation idea up there and keep it neutral. They aren't going to teach it in terms and compare it objectively to science. They are going to PREACH it, they are going to pound it into those kids like a taxpayer funded Michael Jackson learning machine with a keg of jesus juice. How can you honestly think that the religious right isn't going to sneak in Gawd every chance they get?

It isn't going to help teach them anything objectively, it would be used for religious goons to use public funds to crank out their idea. Many of the people that want religion in schools, want evolution out. In the jesus addict state I live in public schools can hardly cover anything science at all. They brush over a little bit of biology in one chapter of their textbooks. What will happen when those people in control get the green light to teach creation? Can you honestly say it will be an objective learning experneice?

There will be nothing neutral or objective about it, it will just streamline the conveyance of bronze age myths.

undertheice said:

the details of religion are just as complex as those of science.

a secular view of the world shows mankind as the animal he is. it leaves us feeling small and alone, a relatively unimportant piece of the cosmic puzzle. religion (especially the abrahamic creeds), on the other hand, places humanity in a superior position in relation to the rest of the natural world. it gives its believers a meaningful place in the grand scheme and a feeling of being loved (or at least recognized) by something greater than ourselves.

the faithful are not necessarily fools, but those who desire love over truth and order over the chaos that surrounds them.

Click to expand...

Yes, religion as a whole is quite complex. But I meant that creation in its own vs evolution. Creation is quite simple to understand in comparison with evolution.

But I agree totally on the views of mankind. I think religion paints man in too good a picture. And frankly, I think that's why so many just HAVE to have religion, because they're nothing special without it.

Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.
-carl sagan

Yeah, Carl Sagan knows his shit. The second episode of Cosmos is one of the best explanations of Darwinian evolution I've seen.

I tried watching the series with my (now ex) girlfriend but we kept getting bored and having sex in the middle of it. But it really is good! Especially for showing devoutly religious people.

Another quote of his I like went along the lines of "You can never convince true believers of anything, because their beliefs arise not from evidence, but from a deep-seated need to believe."