Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2011, 07:43 PM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
(03-10-2011 11:56 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(03-10-2011 10:59 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Evolution is based on testable, observable evidence and has held up well to scutiny for over 100 years and is by far the best theory for how life came to be the form it is now.

Whether or not statement is true depends on what definition of evolution you are using. The word "evolution" has more than one meaning and a lot of confusion occurs if it is used without specifying what meaning is mean.

We observe gradual changes occurring in organisms so that different varieties can trace their ancestors to a single ancestor. One obvious example of this is the existence of different breeds of dog which are all descended from wolves. Everyone would agree that this kind of evolution is true and has been proven.

There is disagreement over what the starting point of this process was. When people speak of evolution they are often referring the the theory popularized by Charles Darwin that all forms of life arose from a single ancestor. Those who teach this are going beyond what we can observe. The Bible has a different explanation. It says that God created distinct kinds of life and we know from observation that these original kinds have the ability to develop into different forms.

Quote:Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a “genetic load” of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers. Creationists assume each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with all its tremendous ecologic and geographic variety. (See Genesis chapter 1.)

Neither creationist nor evolutionist was there at the beginning to see how it was done, but at least the creationist mechanism works, and it’s consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn’t work, and it’s not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe, and that’s creation!

According to the creation concept, each kind starts with a large gene pool present in created, probably “average-looking,” parents. As descendants of these created kinds become isolated, each average-looking (“generalized”) type would tend to break up into a variety of more “specialized” descendants adapted to different environments. Thus, the created ancestors of dogs, for example, have produced such varieties in nature as wolves, coyotes, and jackals. Human beings, of course, have great diversity, too. As the Bible says, God made of “one blood” (or one gene pool) all the “tribes and tongues and nations” of the earth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...thin-kinds

One reason people reject creation as being unscientific is that they simply don't know what creationists believe and how much evidence there is in support of creation.

There is zero evidence to support any creation belief. If there was evidence it wouldn't be in the creationism category, it would be in science category.

The moment you fill in a gap with "god" you become unscientific. Science is science and religion is mythology. Creationism is a story and people try to rationalize to fit their religion. It is a last ditch attempt to save another falling religion. Creationism should be in the mythology classes along with all the other religions along with unintelligent design.

It's as though creationist think that science has an agenda set against anything they do. If real evidence is presented then science tests the evidence and if it lasts it is accepted. Science does not sit around thinking up ways to not accept data. It does try to disprove something until all options are exhausted. Try using the Scientific method a few times. Creationist method will lead you down a path of failure and misinformation very quickly.

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Clint Barnett's post
05-12-2011, 11:41 PM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
I find that, where the argument hasn't been won yet, all sides of the debate are mentioned in educational literature. Psychology is a good example. What psychology textbook only teaches one or two viewpoints on this subject?

Intelligent Design hasn't brought rational debate. It's a negative argument. It attempts to "gun down" evolution and then posit that ID must be true by setting up a false dichotomy (as if, in the absence of evolution, life couldn't arise any other way than by a designer). This is the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (or "God of the Gaps").

ID proponents says that life shows design, and that design can only come from a designer. A good counterexample is language, which has arisen naturally in many places without conscious effort to shape it. Language, it should be noted, is also a good example of evolution of which we have many more fossils that the biological version. But a counterexample isn't necessary, as no one has ever proven that design needs a designer - it's just a tautology (it must have been designed because someone designed it).

And, legally, ID was already thrown out of schools. The court was the place to have this debate, and it was debated, and ID lost (in the US, anyway). Just deal with it, creationists.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 04:15 AM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Good, good, they have finally discarded the ID on trial. What a relief, I was afraid it is going to get out of hand.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2011, 04:27 AM
 
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
No, if people want to have creation science they can do it in religion class, was* is quite fun for me...I like fairy tales, even if the bible is more of the horror genre with all the violence and destruction in it.

Edit: *sp
Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2011, 06:42 AM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Creation should be taught as myth along side other myths like the story of Ginungagapet giving birth to giants etc (norse mythology), but not in biology class, in courses about religion and history. We have religion as subject here in Sweden, other countries should keep their myths there too in my opinion.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof Christopher Hitchens

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion Steven Weinberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2011, 09:50 AM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Creationism has no place whatsoever in a science class. However, as a historical view point and a religious idea - it shouldn't be kept out of comparative religion or humanities classes - although it should always be presented with a disclaimer that it has been proved scientifically that creationism is not a factual view of the world.

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."
- Karl Popper

Blog | Music
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 10:44 AM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Let religion ring in world history with mythology and science remain as is... strictly science Smile

The fish who keeps on swimming is the first to chill upstream.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 11:10 AM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Yeah, I don't see any reason to treat the Christian creation story with special treatment over all the others. Keep science and facts in school, keep religion in church. You don't see people protesting and screaming and getting worked up over the fact that churches don't teach evolution.

Also, if the people that wanted to teach Creationism were really concerned about being fair and teaching all the sides, they would be wanting to teach ALL the creation myths for every religion, but guess what, there isn't enough time for that shit. This is about power and control and they want to get their fingers into science classes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2011, 12:55 PM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
Don't use payer in my school and I won't use reason in your church.

Sounds good, but they are different institutions. School is for education, and we SHOULD educate kids on religion. But that education should be what religion is, not that it's truth. By teaching kids what religion is, and what impact it has had on our history, they will inevitably turn to a secular way of life. That's why the religous leaders want kids to pray in school instead of learn.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
18-12-2011, 01:41 PM
RE: Do you support the idea of teaching both Creation and Evolution theory in schools?
(18-12-2011 12:55 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Don't use payer in my school and I won't use reason in your church.

Sounds good, but they are different institutions. School is for education, and we SHOULD educate kids on religion. But that education should be what religion is, not that it's truth. By teaching kids what religion is, and what impact it has had on our history, they will inevitably turn to a secular way of life. That's why the religous leaders want kids to pray in school instead of learn.

Like I said before, I doubt there is anything more effective at churning out atheists than a parochial education. Sure as shit worked for me and my brothers.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: