Creationism in schools?

[mycorrhiza]

There are millions of intelligent people who reject the theory of evolution. Further, the scientific establishment works hard to punish any scientist who dares to publicly question the sacred cow of evolution.

Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing theories? Is it because you are insecure? I think many people (who haven't been taught to ignore facts) understand that things, living or non-living, don't build themselves. (Hebrews 3:4)

Could you give me any examples of those punishments?

Scientists are questioning parts of evolution all the time. Just look at punctuated equilibrium. The problem is that ID isn't scientific. There's no proper testable hypothesis.


You might as well ask why chemists are so afraid of alchemists or why astronomers are so afraid of astrologists.

 

[Levite]

Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing theories? Is it because you are insecure? I think many people (who haven't been taught to ignore facts) understand that things, living or non-living, don't build themselves. (Hebrews 3:4)

That, right there, is one more reason I want Creationism out of public schools: it's not just that religion isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as science, it's also that I don't want my kids being taught anything with Christian scripture. "Creationism" always seems to be Christian: as a Jew, this doesn't interest me, and excludes me. I assume the same would be said by Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, practitioners of indigenous religions, and so forth, also.

Keeping science curricula scientific is not only good science, it also fosters religious pluralism.

 

[BSM1]

Since no one has defined "creationism", each person interprets what it is according to their experience and education.

The "creationism" that some want taught in schools is the story of creation found in Genesis. There is no grey area. If what you said were the case then we could have an intelligent sharing of views.

 

[jarofthoughts]

There are millions of intelligent people who reject the theory of evolution.

So what?
That just means that they are either ignorant or in denial.

Further, the scientific establishment works hard to punish any scientist who dares to publicly question the sacred cow of evolution.

Yeah, right.
Next you'll be saying that 'Expelled' actually has something intelligent to say on the matter...

Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing theories?

They're not.
It's just that there are no competing theories.
Let me know when one turns up though and I'll have a look.

Is it because you are insecure?

Considering that ToE is one of, if not the, best supported scientific theories we have, I don't think insecurity is an issue.

I think many people (who haven't been taught to ignore facts) understand that things, living or non-living, don't build themselves. (Hebrews 3:4)

So now you're quoting the bible as if that has any sort of relevance. :sarcastic

 

[Valjean]

There are millions of intelligent people who reject the theory of evolution. Further, the scientific establishment works hard to punish any scientist who dares to publicly question the sacred cow of evolution.

But those "millions" (?) generally do not understand the ToE; are unfamiliar with the evidence. I also wonder if any of these millions have some alternative explanation for biological diversity.

Punishing? There is no punishing. Are you referring to that Expelled -- No Intelligence Allowed film? That's been pretty well debunked.

Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing theories? Is it because you are insecure? I think many people (who haven't been taught to ignore facts) understand that things, living or non-living, don't build themselves. (Hebrews 3:4)

How many times do we have to repeat this: There are no competing theories. ID is not a theory. It's an assertion of agency backed up by a book of mythology.

'Evolutionists' are backed up by incontrovertible evidence and are perfectly secure in their beliefs. The incessant buzz from creationists is merely annoying. The only thing scientists might fear are the consequences of so many people being taken in by creationist propaganda.

"Haven't been taught to ignore facts?" What facts? "God did it" is not a facy. Magic is not a testable methodology.

 

[Iti oj]

I home school because I live in one of those states. I'm sure I will teach creationism though, its always good to study primitive cultures and their beliefs.



Mr. Wizard can kick the science guy's butt.

Mr.wizard cant deny theirs no god like hocuspocus

 

[Draka]

There are millions of intelligent people who reject the theory of evolution.

I'm sure there might be. And those intelligent people obviously just haven't been competently educated on evolution. Hey, it happens. Can't accept that which you are uninformed or uneducated about right?

Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing theories?

What competing Scientific Theories would you be referring to? Why would there be anything to fear, first off? It's not like Evolution is a religion upon which people have built their whole way of life around and if anything about it were to be proven wrong our whole inner morality and how we define ourselves would come tumbling down around us. That is the problem Creationists face.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I'm all for creationism being taught in schools only if outsiders can come in and give lectures on basics of evolution and scientific method in Churches during mass and other events. We'll even let the Church put a disclaimer in the lesson handbook that says "These are scientific theories only and does not rely on faith. If you don't want eternal damnation, we suggest you take everything they say with a grain of salt."

 

[Sunstone]

There are millions of intelligent people who reject the theory of evolution.

I bet if you tested how much those millions of intelligent people knew about evolution most of them wouldn't score high enough to pass a high school biology test on evolution. Hell, most of those intelligent millions probably believe the theory of evolution deals with the origins of life, relies on pure randomness to explain species change, and is not a scientific theory, among other drooling moonbat lunacies.

 

[Secret Chief]

Creation myths are common to many religions of course, but I find it sad, somewhat inexplicable, and quite alarming that a wealthy nation that has a strong educational culture (eg universities) could have so many pre-Enlightenment people in it. Creation myths should only be included in religious studies, they have no place in science.

Did the treatment of Galileo Galilei teach us nothing?

 

[rusra02]

That, right there, is one more reason I want Creationism out of public schools: it's not just that religion isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as science, it's also that I don't want my kids being taught anything with Christian scripture. "Creationism" always seems to be Christian: as a Jew, this doesn't interest me, and excludes me. I assume the same would be said by Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, practitioners of indigenous religions, and so forth, also.

Keeping science curricula scientific is not only good science, it also fosters religious pluralism.

True Christians and Jews who believe the Torah do believe that "God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) That verse is in the Hebrew Scriptures, penned by Moses, a Hebrew. I simply cited a verse from the Christian Greek Scriptures because it made the point that all things have a maker, from a house to the universe, except for the Source of all things, God.
Further, "Creationism" means different things to different people. Intelligent Design is not equal "Creationism", in my opinion. Finally, millions would argue that the ToE is not scientific at all, but an implausible, unproven theory full of gaping holes and assumptions.

 

[Wirey]

Finally, millions would argue that the ToE is not scientific at all, but an implausible, unproven theory full of gaping holes and assumptions.

Millions would argue that electricity is fact, as well, but it's a theory, just like evolution. Millions of uneducated riff-raff do not disprove science. The lack of intelligence that leads to the rejection of the ToE is the issue of the loony who says "Science can perfectly explain everything in my life, except this one thing that a 2000 year old book written by goatherders who thought the sun revolved around a flat earth and every living thing was in walking distance of Noah's hut". I'll stick with logic and reason, thank you.

The actual word 'Theory', used scientifically, doesn't mean 'guess'.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Hardly an 'implausible, unproven' thing, eh?

 

[rusra02]

I'm sure there might be. And those intelligent people obviously just haven't been competently educated on evolution. Hey, it happens. Can't accept that which you are uninformed or uneducated about right?

Are you including in those that "just haven't been competently educated on evolution" scientists, including biologists, who reject the ToE? Your dismissive "obviously these poor people have been uninformed" is condescending, to say the least.
The Bible says that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made...so that [men who deny God] are inexcusable;...they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened." (Romans 1:20,21) I think a large part of the appeal of the ToE to so many, is that it frees a person to do what he wants, without being answerable to God for their conduct.

What competing Scientific Theories would you be referring to? Why would there be anything to fear, first off? It's not like Evolution is a religion upon which people have built their whole way of life around and if anything about it were to be proven wrong our whole inner morality and how we define ourselves would come tumbling down around us. That is the problem Creationists face.​

ID is a competing theory. I disagree with you that evolution is not a religion. I think it is a religion, with it's scientific high priests and prophets, its dogmas and articles of faith. The zeal with which any questions against it are attacked bespeak the religious fervor of some of it's adherents.

 

[rusra02]

Millions would argue that electricity is fact, as well, but it's a theory, just like evolution. Millions of uneducated riff-raff do not disprove science. The lack of intelligence that leads to the rejection of the ToE is the issue of the loony who says "Science can perfectly explain everything in my life, except this one thing that a 2000 year old book written by goatherders who thought the sun revolved around a flat earth and every living thing was in walking distance of Noah's hut". I'll stick with logic and reason, thank you.

The actual word 'Theory', used scientifically, doesn't mean 'guess'.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Hardly an 'implausible, unproven' thing, eh?

Your dismissal of those who reject the ToE as "Millions of uneducated riff-raff " is typical of the responses of evolutionists. And if "science can explain everything in my life", I must have missed the answer to this question: How did life on earth begin?

The words of Irving Kristol, published in the NY Times, 9/30/86 seem to be appropriate as to whether evolution is "a well-substantiated explanation...of the natural world." He stated: "Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, it is nothing of the sort. It has to many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and genetic mutation...The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological theory, not a biological fact."

 

[Father Heathen]

Let's be honest; is there really anyone out there to rejects evolution for any reason other than an insistence on a literal interpretation of ancient fables?

 

[Wirey]

Your dismissal of those who reject the ToE as "Millions of uneducated riff-raff " is typical of the responses of evolutionists. And if "science can explain everything in my life", I must have missed the answer to this question: How did life on earth begin?

The words of Irving Kristol, published in the NY Times, 9/30/86 seem to be appropriate as to whether evolution is "a well-substantiated explanation...of the natural world." He stated: "Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, it is nothing of the sort. It has to many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and genetic mutation...The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological theory, not a biological fact."

Irving Kristol - Author of Memoirs of a Trotskyist? That's your source?

2000 years ago primitive people said Heaven was just up there in the clouds, and science disagreed. Who wound up looking stupid? 600 years ago, primitive people said the sun revolved around a flat earth, and science disagreed. Who wound up looking stupid? 500 years ago primitive people said illness was caused by a toad or a dwarf living in your stomach, and science disagreed. Who looks stupid now?

Primitive people say that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and science disagrees. Care to guess where this one will end?

Primitive people say you can't tell where life began, and science disagrees:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care to guess where this one will end?

 

[Draka]

Are you including in those that "just haven't been competently educated on evolution" scientists, including biologists, who reject the ToE? Your dismissive "obviously these poor people have been uninformed" is condescending, to say the least.
The Bible says that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made...so that [men who deny God] are inexcusable;...they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened." (Romans 1:20,21) I think a large part of the appeal of the ToE to so many, is that it frees a person to do what he wants, without being answerable to God for their conduct.

What the bible says about anything in regards to science doesn't mean anything. Mythology has no place in scientific endeavors. That is not its purpose and until people realize that they will never truly learn its true purpose.

ID is a competing theory.

No. It isn't. I was asking about a competing Scientific Theory. ID is not one. There is nothing scientific about ID. Present a competing Scientific Theory to the Theory of Evolution please.

I disagree with you that evolution is not a religion. I think it is a religion, with it's scientific high priests and prophets, its dogmas and articles of faith. The zeal with which any questions against it are attacked bespeak the religious fervor of some of it's adherents.

You can disagree all you like. Doesn't make you any less wrong. There are no priests or prophets associated with Evolution. Might as well say there are bishops of Gravity and pastors of Electricity. The mere claim is ridiculous. There is no dogma, no faith required. The evidence is there for anyone to see who wants to see it. It is simply that many choose not to want to see it out of desire to not give up their chosen beliefs.

 

[rusra02]

Irving Kristol - Author of Memoirs of a Trotskyist? That's your source?

2000 years ago primitive people said Heaven was just up there in the clouds, and science disagreed. Who wound up looking stupid? 600 years ago, primitive people said the sun revolved around a flat earth, and science disagreed. Who wound up looking stupid? 500 years ago primitive people said illness was caused by a toad or a dwarf living in your stomach, and science disagreed. Who looks stupid now?

Primitive people say that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and science disagrees. Care to guess where this one will end?

Primitive people say you can't tell where life began, and science disagrees:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care to guess where this one will end?

Less than 300 years ago, "science" said the best treatment for a variety of ills was to bleed people. About 120 year ago, Lord Kelvin, renowned British scientist declared "Heaver-than-air flying machines are impossible." Ten years ago evolutionist scientists said that 98% of DNA is junk from "natures experiments which failed." None of those ideas are science, but the delusional thinking of supposedly learned men. True science is based on facts, not speculation and sleight of hand.
Interestingly, the Bible does not support the misconceptions prevalent during the time it was written. To the contrary, the Bible is accurate when dealing with scientific matters.
Finally, posting a link doesn't answer the question: Where did life on earth come from? Science may not have the answer, but the Bible does. (Psalm 36:9)

​

​

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Let's face the facts. Creationism/ID being taught in public schools is just another way that fundamentalist Christians are trying to force their religion on people who neither want it or need it. It's plain as day that creationism/ID isn't science. Fundamentalist Christians would have a fit if Muslims, Hindus, or any other religion with creation myths tried to get their views taught in public schools, especially as science. I remember a few years ago, a public school out in California, an elementary school, had a day where they investigated other cultures, and this particular day happened to be about Arab culture, so they, naturally, taught some things about Islam, not that it was the "true religion", but just so the kids would have an idea, and it seems like every Christian in the country was up in arms about it, protesting it, deriding those who thought it was a good idea, etc, etc, ad nauseum. So, let's look at what's really going on: fundamentalist Christians want this nation to be ruled by fundamentalist Christianity, with no religious freedoms for those who disagree with them, and having creationism/ID taught in public schools as science is just one of their tactics.

 

[Wirey]

Less than 300 years ago, "science" said the best treatment for a variety of ills was to bleed people. About 120 year ago, Lord Kelvin, renowned British scientist declared "Heaver-than-air flying machines are impossible." Ten years ago evolutionist scientists said that 98% of DNA is junk from "natures experiments which failed." None of those ideas are science, but the delusional thinking of supposedly learned men. True science is based on facts, not speculation and sleight of hand.
Interestingly, the Bible does not support the misconceptions prevalent during the time it was written. To the contrary, the Bible is accurate when dealing with scientific matters.
Finally, posting a link doesn't answer the question: Where did life on earth come from? Science may not have the answer, but the Bible does. (Psalm 36:9)

Exactly. Science said "This is this" and kept checking anyway. And eventually got it right. Thanks, I appreciate your assistance.

PS The Bible is accurate when dealing with scientific matters? When Jesus physically ascended into Heaven, where did He go? Jonah lived in a whale? LOL!