Teaching creationism in schools

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Side Note: As always in threads like this, I must note:

 

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are in no way, shape, or form related to each other. One is a biological theory of ebiogenesis. The other is a cosmological theory of cosmogenesis. They are two fields that are about as closely related, scientifically, as astrophysics and botany.

 

Also, neither relates in any scientific way, to The Big Bang Theory, a sitcom on CBS starring an attractive blonde and 4 zany nerd stereotypes that were outdated 10 years ago.

[Live or Die Magic 383]

Side Note: As always in threads like this, I must note:

 

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are in no way, shape, or form related to each other. One is a biological theory of ebiogenesis. The other is a cosmological theory of cosmogenesis. They are two fields that are about as closely related, scientifically, as astrophysics and botany.

 

Also, neither relates in any scientific way, to The Big Bang Theory, a sitcom on CBS starring an attractive blonde and 4 zany nerd stereotypes that were outdated 10 years ago.

 

They are still worthy of mentioning in this argument and here's why: Creationism emcompasses within it an explanation for the creation of the Universe (i.e., the Big Bang theory) and an explanation for the existence of mankind in his/her current form (i.e., theory of Evolution). So, if you are discussing teaching Creationism as a way to explain life, then both "halves" of the counter-argument are likely to be discussed (existance of Universe; existence of man). The two aren't being compared to each other, they are being compared to Creationism.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

They are still worthy of mentioning in this argument and here's why: Creationism emcompasses within it an explanation for the creation of the Universe (i.e., the Big Bang theory) and an explanation for the existence of mankind in his/her current form (i.e., theory of Evolution). So, if you are discussing teaching Creationism as a way to explain life, then both "halves" of the counter-argument are likely to be discussed (existance of Universe; existence of man). The two aren't being compared to each other, they are being compared to Creationism.

 

 

I was responding specifically to Blue describing evolution and the big bang as being one theory rather than two separate theories that explain different things.

 

To respond to your example with an example, one needs to understand both valance rings, isotopes, and ionization to understand the flow of electricity. However, they ARE all different things, and shouldn't be referred to as being one unified concept.

[Osprey 199]

We teach Darwin's Theory in Science Class, that's not a true scientific theory either. It's non-disprovable, thus relegating it into a pseudo-science category. However we teach it as theory to students in all levels of Biology.

 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't teach evolution in science class, because I believe that evolution is undisputable, just not Darwin's "theory" of it.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Additional side note:

 

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I truly hope we can all agree on one thing: Kirk Cameron is a ****ing moron.

 

[Live or Die Magic 383]

Additional side note:

 

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I truly hope we can all agree on one thing: Kirk Cameron is a ****ing moron.

 

 

That duck likely had some severe growing pains.

[KLR 5]

No, I don't think creationism should be taught in a science class.

 

And I do agree with the Hedo hater, a worlds religion kind of class could be really helpful in how we relate to other cultures and shine a bit understanding on our own.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

We teach Darwin's Theory in Science Class, that's not a true scientific theory either. It's non-disprovable, thus relegating it into a pseudo-science category. However we teach it as theory to students in all levels of Biology.

 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't teach evolution in science class, because I believe that evolution is undisputable, just not Darwin's "theory" of it.

 

You've piqued my curiosity. Care to elaborate?

[Blu 1]

:panicworker:

 

If you want to get technical and not to consider creationism a theory, then fine, we'll just call it intelligent design and throw out all the religious connotations. Intelligent design can be a bridge between science and theology. Right now there is no answer for life's origin and neither 'theory' really has any concrete proof behind it(and yes design theory is a theory). This subject, it's more a matter of taste. What an individual choses to believe, is what they want to believe.

 

Why we are quick to teach Darwinism as a science in school, but yet reluctant to teach design theory? idk. It's not like there is concrete proof in any one theorem. Just teach the kids man and be honest. Put the facts on the table and actually teach them something, so they form their own opinions. Dont hold back or manipulate the situation to make it look like one thing is more factual. Nah, there is no answer to this question right now so put it all on the table is how I feel. Either do that, or save ur money and dont teach it @ all lol.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

:panicworker:

 

If you want to get technical and not to consider creationism a theory, then fine, we'll just call it intelligent design and throw out all the religious connotations. Intelligent design can be a bridge between science and theology. Right now there is no answer for life's origin and neither 'theory' really has any concrete proof behind it(and yes design theory is a theory). This subject, it's more a matter of taste. What an individual choses to believe, is what they want to believe.

 

Why we are quick to teach Darwinism as a science in school, but yet reluctant to teach design theory? idk. It's not like there is concrete proof in any one theorem. Just teach the kids man and be honest. Put the facts on the table and actually teach them something, so they form their own opinions. Dont hold back or manipulate the situation to make it look like one thing is more factual. Nah, there is no answer to this question right now so put it all on the table is how I feel. Either do that, or save ur money and dont teach it @ all lol.

 

Again, my curiosity is piqued. Two things:

 

1. What are the differences between intelligent design and creationism, aside from the name?

 

2. Which features of intelligent design allow it to be accurately called a scientific theory?

[Osprey 199]

You've piqued my curiosity. Care to elaborate?

 

By definition, a Scientific/Mathematical/Physical Theory must be testable and disprovable. Therefore any theory offering "truths" that are not able to be empirically tested and disproved are not true Scientific Theories, but fall into the realm of pseudo-science.

 

For example, I can theorize that the moon was created by Thor, but that assertion is untestable for obvious reasons.

 

To take one of Darwin's tenets (The Theory of Survival of the Fittest), it is impossible to test for several reasons, one being that ones comes to a circular argument when discussing the outcome logically.

 

Observer A: I theorize that species that are the fittest or best equipped to survive will survive.

 

Observer B: How can we test that theory?

 

Observer A: By observing species and their extinction rates as well as their ecological competitors

 

Observer B: How do we know the "fittest" survived?

 

A: Because they survived while their competitors died.

 

B: Why did they survive?

 

A: Because they were the fittest.

 

B: How do we know they were the fittest?

 

A: Because they survived.

 

 

Again, this is just one tenet of Darwin's overarching Theory. His other being that we all evolved from the same species or that we all have a common ancestor. This is untestable because we cannot reproduce it in a scientific study nor do we have enough empirical data to back up the claim. The fossil record is woefully limited.

 

What we do have empirical evidence of are species who retain beneficial traits throughout generations. Evolution in the sense that useless traits or traits contrary to survival are bred out over generations. Such as birds who have longer beaks will survive because they are able to reach seeds deep within trees, etc. This does not give us evidence of one species evolving into another, separate one.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

If you want to get technical and not to consider creationism a theory, then fine, we'll just call it intelligent design and throw out all the religious connotations.

 

Throwing out the religious connotations of creationism would be impossible, since it's around the belief in a supernatural creator that the entire theory is hinged.

 

Intelligent design can be a bridge between science and theology.

 

Hammurabi's code could be considered a bridge between early human anarchy and modern democracy. But only a lunatic would consider it an example of democracy, in and of itself.

 

Right now there is no answer for life's origin and neither 'theory' really has any concrete proof behind it(and yes design theory is a theory).

 

The current, most common theory of intelligent design is no more a scientific theory than that letter the guy from the church of the flying spaghetti monster is a scientific theory. The "science" behind Intelligent Design Theory is based on a series of "well it just feels right" subjective nonsense and a whole heck of a lot of presenting odd correlations as scientifically calculated causations, the likes of which would have caused my high school science teacher to hang herself if I'd presented them in class.

 

This subject, it's more a matter of taste. What an individual choses to believe, is what they want to believe.

 

So would you say that if I chose to believe that you were, scientifically, the antichrist and that for the good of man kind, you MUST be shot dead immediately, that we should teach that in a science class?

 

People are free to believe whatever they want. That's the great thing about freedom of religion. However, your belief, my belief, and the beliefs of anyone else are irrelevant because our beliefs as to how the universe formed is no more scientific theory than my theories about why it always seems to be raining whenever I have to make a long drive.

 

Why we are quick to teach Darwinism as a science in school, but yet reluctant to teach design theory?

 

Because the modern Evolutionary theory, which is based on but not the same as the initial theories put forth by Darwin, are the most commonly accepted theories regarding how life spread and diversified on Earth. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is widely seen in the scientific community as proof that people are using their religion as a means by which they can maintain willful ignorance and retain their sense of moral superiority at the same time.

 

idk. It's not like there is concrete proof in any one theorem.

 

There is no proof that all animals evolved from one ancestor, yes, but there is enormous proof of speciation, which is what modern evolutionary theory is based on. There is, however, no scientific proof at all that the laws of science had an external creator to which those laws don't apply.

 

Just teach the kids man and be honest. Put the facts on the table and actually teach them something, so they form their own opinions.

 

How would teaching something as science which the scientific community largely finds to be absurd non-science be considered putting the facts on the table? You're welcome to educate your children however you wish, but you're children aren't being cheated because your children aren't being taught faith-based pseudoscience in biology class.

 

Dont hold back or manipulate the situation to make it look like one thing is more factual.

 

It's not a question of fact or non-fact. It's a question of which belief is held by the scientific community, and which is not. "We don't know yet" is a perfectly exceptable scientific response to a question that the scientific community doesn't have an answer to. "God did it." is most certainly not.

 

Nah, there is no answer to this question right now so put it all on the table is how I feel. Either do that, or save ur money and dont teach it @ all lol.

 

While we're on the subject, what exactly would a science class lesson on Creationism entail?

 

Teacher: "There is also the theory of intelligent design, which states that things are really complicated, and that there had to be a creator because of how complicated things are. Supporters of this theory are usually not scientists, are on the payroll of Southern Baptist "think tanks", or are graduates of non-accredited Christian colleges, and they usually present evidence so patently ludicrous, you wonder how they can actually put on clothes in the morning. Exhibit A: Kirk Cameron went on national television to claim that evolution couldn't possibly exist because there is no such thing as a croco-duck."

 

And before anyone thinks I have anything against Christians for the Christian college crack, replace "non-accredited Christian college" with "non-accredited Muslim college", and see if you still feel the same about it.