Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

[beerftw]

i personally think eolution and fact should not go together in the same sentence,its a theory.i get tired of people saying we can teach evolution over creationism because of facts,facts that simply dont exist,infact i prefer creationism over evolution solely because the first is know as faith and believed as such and the latter is faith believed as fact with no evidence.

i will not say evolution is wrong but wrather its never been proven right.never has anyone found a transitional fossil to prove the current theory,and anyone who attempts a different theory is blacklisted from the scientific community,lets face it scientists cant admit they are wrong so they will force a flawed theory on everyone instead of correcting it.if the evolution theory was so factual they would allow creationism taught side by side,but its not factual,and never will be until scientists can simply admit the current theory is wrong and attemp to correct it.

scientists have proved evolution but by no means proved how it happened,infact science has proven he current theory false.besides no transitional fossils all species that ceased to be died at the exact same time a new one appeared,but scientinsts dont want to mention or cover that phenomenon because simply it would prove them wrong,but not evolution in general.

 

[RadicalModerate]

i [sic] personally think eolution [sic] and fact should not go together in the same sentence,its [sic] a theory.

So is gravity. Like most creationists, you confuse the everyday-use of the term "theory" with a "hypothesis".

i [sic] get tired of people saying we can teach evolution over creationism because of facts,facts that simply dont exist

Hmmm, care to explain explain genetics, then?

infact [sic] i [sic] prefer creationism over evolution solely because the first is know [sic] as faith and believed as such and the latter is faith believed as fact with no evidence.

Care to explain all known taxonomic and anatomical data and how it fits perfectly into the evolutionary timeline, then?

i will not say evolution is wrong but wrather [sic] its never been proven right.never has anyone [sic] found a transitional fossil to prove the current theory...

Here's a few examples of "transitional fossils"

Archaeopteryx
Ardipithecus ramidus
Panderichthys
Homo habilis
Probainognathus
Triadobatrachus
Darwinopterus,
Rodhocetus
Diarthrognathus
Lycaenops
Pliohippus
Tiktaalik
Amphistium
Ambulocetus
Homo Ergaster
Hyracotherium
Hyracotherium

Care to explain these and the hundreds of other examples?

and anyone who attempts a different theory is blacklisted from the scientific community,lets face it scientists cant admit they are wrong [sic] so they will force a flawed theory on everyone instead of correcting it.

You have no idea how the scientific process, the self-correcting nature of science or peer-review works.

if the evolution theory was so factual they would allow creationism taught [sic] side by side,but its not factual,and never will be until scientists can simply admit the current theory is wrong and attemp to correct it.

It's been done a billion times, and Creationism has been pounded into the dust every single time. Curiously, if evolution was wrong, how would that make Creationism right? You'd still need a huge mass of specific facts before you can say Creationism is factually right. Where are these facts?

scientists have proved evolution but by no means proved how it happened,infact [sic] science has proven he [sic] current theory false.

Lol wut? Evolution is correct, but we don't know how it works? So how can we say something is correct if we don't know the details about it? But then again, "science" has proved evolutionary theory false. Explain that one.

besides no [sic] transitional fossils all species that ceased to be died [lol/sic] at the exact same time a new one appeared,but scientinsts dont want to mention or cover that phenomenon because simply [sic] it would prove them wrong,but not evolution in general.

There are hundreds of transitional fossils. The reason creationists don't recognize them is whenever they are presented with an example of one species slowly changing and becoming a seperate species, they move the goalposts for proof.

What do you mean "all species that ceased to be died at the exact same time a new one appeared"? Glaring grammatical errors aside, what "phenomenon" are you describing here? All creatures died the instant their offspring was born?

Lastly...dude, are you thirteen years old? You need to learn to type, spell-check, use punctuation and how to write coherent ideas in sentence format! Or you will not last on DP!

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well, first off, evolution says nothing about the origin of life...

I was wondering just when someone would bring that up. No, evolution isn't a theory about the origin of life. No one knows how life began.

It's "just" a scientific theory (the "it's just a theory" people need to look that one up) about how the various life forms that have existed here over the millions of years came to be what they were/are.

 

[Bodi]

Why shouldn't it be? That's what many people believe... that God created the world, so why shouldn't we teach every viewpoint? Education should be holistic, I don't see the need to cover up what millions believe simply because it doesn't match your particular viewpoint.

Teach everything.

That opens up Pandora's Box here... then we should teach Buddhism, Hinuism, Islam and Judiasm in addition to Christianity and biology/evolution?

Another big issue is that there is proof for one and no proof for the other... should we be teaching mythology as science too? Nobody has proven that Hades does not exist, after all.

 

[Bodi]

i personally think eolution and fact should not go together in the same sentence,its a theory.i get tired of people saying we can teach evolution over creationism because of facts,facts that simply dont exist,infact i prefer creationism over evolution solely because the first is know as faith and believed as such and the latter is faith believed as fact with no evidence.

i will not say evolution is wrong but wrather its never been proven right.never has anyone found a transitional fossil to prove the current theory,and anyone who attempts a different theory is blacklisted from the scientific community,lets face it scientists cant admit they are wrong so they will force a flawed theory on everyone instead of correcting it.if the evolution theory was so factual they would allow creationism taught side by side,but its not factual,and never will be until scientists can simply admit the current theory is wrong and attemp to correct it.

scientists have proved evolution but by no means proved how it happened,infact science has proven he current theory false.besides no transitional fossils all species that ceased to be died at the exact same time a new one appeared,but scientinsts dont want to mention or cover that phenomenon because simply it would prove them wrong,but not evolution in general.

What are fossils and carbon dating if not facts? There is all sorts of evidenc for anybody that is willing to be open.

I read an issue of the Watch Tower that sounded a lot like what you are saying.

 

[Boo Radley]

I went to high school in Sweden, a very secular society that is maybe 3% Christian.

It is also very liberal, the tax rate for example is like 60% and almost all social services are provided like universal healthcare etc.


Even in Sweden, in Biology class, Creationism was given equal time and treatment to Evolution. We even learned about Panspermia (that life may have originated on other planets and was brought here). Many theories.

The point was not to endorse religion, but to educate us in a number of viewpoints. The viewpoints are out there, so why not learn them?

My question is... the USA is much more religious than Sweden.... so why is it so taboo to speak of religion or even mention it in US schools??

NO. Simple reason, science should be taught in science class and religion in religion class.

 

[Bodi]

NO. Simple reason, science should be taught in science class and religion in religion class.

If at all... and a religious class should never be made mandatory.

 

[digsbe]

Yes it should. We do a disservice to our children by presenting them with one view and instill that the single view is completely true and anyone who dares question it is ignorant of science. I don't think they should teach theology, but they should be teaching the intricate aspects of cell biology and the complexity of life and how evolution has no answers for these things outside of "it had to evolve."

 

[_____]

If at all... and a religious class should never be made mandatory.

The more we know, the more we understand. It would be ignorant to shelter students from religions of the world, don't you think?

Edit: Especially in today's globalized/diverse society. And I don't mean in a biology class, I mean in a separate class.

 

[Boo Radley]

If at all... and a religious class should never be made mandatory.

I agree. But that is where matter of faith should be discussed. We should not confuse science with faith or vice versa.

 

[liblady]

Yes it should. We do a disservice to our children by presenting them with one view and instill that the single view is completely true and anyone who dares question it is ignorant of science. I don't think they should teach theology, but they should be teaching the intricate aspects of cell biology and the complexity of life and how evolution has no answers for these things outside of "it had to evolve."

parents are the ones who should teach their children religion. that's NOT the job of a public school, period. just because evolution has doesn't explain everything doesn't mean we should teach children something with NO scientific basis.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yes it should. We do a disservice to our children by presenting them with one view and instill that the single view is completely true and anyone who dares question it is ignorant of science. I don't think they should teach theology, but they should be teaching the intricate aspects of cell biology and the complexity of life and how evolution has no answers for these things outside of "it had to evolve."

Os science the only class they take? Do they not go to church? Why would they only have one view?

 

[digsbe]

parents are the ones who should teach their children religion. that's NOT the job of a public school, period. just because evolution has doesn't explain everything doesn't mean we should teach children something with NO scientific basis.

Evolution has no scientific bases if creationism has no scientific basis. They both draw conclusions from observations but there is no concrete evidence for either. I am not advocating teaching the Genesis account of creationism or any other religion's. I am for teaching students about the intricate processes of life and the supporting evidence for a creator. I think they should also teach from the viewpoint that life was intricately designed. It's wrong to teach one unproven view and to teach it as solid truth that cannot be questioned.

 

[Bodi]

The more we know, the more we understand. It would be ignorant to shelter students from religions of the world, don't you think?

Edit: Especially in today's globalized/diverse society. And I don't mean in a biology class, I mean in a separate class.

The more we know the more we know. They already teach an over view in World History so nobody is sheltering anybody from anything. Anybody interested can learn more. Teaching that Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution though? Well, that is pretty far fetched if for no other reason that there is some tangible proof to one and none to the other.

 

[liblady]

Evolution has no scientific bases if creationism has no scientific basis. They both draw conclusions from observations but there is no concrete evidence for either. I am not advocating teaching the Genesis account of creationism or any other religion's. I am for teaching students about the intricate processes of life and the supporting evidence for a creator. I think they should also teach from the viewpoint that life was intricately designed. It's wrong to teach one unproven view and to teach it as solid truth that cannot be questioned.

oh dear, dig. evolution has no scientific basis? wtf? there is NO supporting evidence for a creator, i'm sorry. not one whit. and yes, i believe in (a) god. on faith.

 

[Bodi]

I agree. But that is where matter of faith should be discussed. We should not confuse science with faith or vice versa.

Agreed. The two are distinct and that is the very reason that they cannot be compared when discussing our origins...

 

[_____]

The more we know the more we know. They already teach an over view in World History so nobody is sheltering anybody from anything. Anybody interested can learn more. Teaching that Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution though? Well, that is pretty far fetched if for no other reason that there is some tangible proof to one and none to the other.

Oh okay, I thought you meant completely get rid of all teachings of religion in school, including the overviews in history classes.

 

[digsbe]

oh dear, dig. evolution has no scientific basis? wtf? there is NO supporting evidence for a creator, i'm sorry. not one whit. and yes, i believe in (a) god. on faith.

It really doesn't. People have theories and ideas about evolution but no one has seen one species evolve into another. None of us were present when life first formed whether that be due to an evolutionary process or a creator. Without this we can't say that there is concrete proof for something. Now, there is supporting evidence for evolution and creationism. Scientists may chose to interpret that evidence differently. There are very complex molecular processes that evolution cannot explain. It would be wrong to look at these things and say "X is complex therefore there is a designer" but it's not wrong to take these things as supporting evidence for a designer. It would be equally wrong to ignore these things and accept evolution as solid concrete truth and say "we know evolution is true, and even though we don't understand this process we can conclude that evolution created it."

 

[liblady]

I've heard that.

Do they also teach Christianity, or not?

in that catholics believe in christ? yes.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Evolution has no scientific bases if creationism has no scientific basis. They both draw conclusions from observations but there is no concrete evidence for either.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -Theodosius Dobzhansky (title of a 1973 essay by him)

There is astounding concrete evidence for evolution. Genetics, geology, taxonomy, physiology, biochemistry/biophysics, paleontology, zoology, chemistry, astronomy...all these sciences somehow come together, finding data independent of others and it all makes sense in the light of the overall theory of evolution. But no, there's no "concrete evidence" for evolution! Ridiculous! What "evidence" do you want to see exactly? Real time evolution? Look at bacteriology, we see many levels of evolution happening right in front of us!

This whole "no evidence" line is pure BS. People who spout this tripe wouldn't know "evidence" if they sat on the sharp side of it. There's countless points of evidence, from almost every natural science. Doubters just move the goalposts for what qualifies as evidence every time they are presented with some.

I am for teaching students about the intricate processes of life and the supporting evidence for a creator.

Lol, what evidence is there, exactly, for this creator? Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and remember, poking holes in evolution doesn't prove your side is "truer". I don't think you realize that your proposal leads to more questions than it answers. You'll need to explain the mechanism behind this creator before you can even begin to claim it as a factual alternative to evolutionary theory.

I think they should also teach from the viewpoint that life was intricately designed. It's wrong to teach one unproven view and to teach it as solid truth that cannot be questioned.

Again, evolution is not "unproven"; in fact, it's the exact opposite. It might be the most factually supported scientific theory in human history. Not even gravity and physics have such broad, multidisciplinary support behind it. You are correct about one thing, lifeforms were designed...by natural processes and their respective environments over millions and millions of years.

 

[RadicalModerate]

People have theories and ideas about evolution but no one has seen one species evolve into another.

How bacteria evolve to adapt to a new environment!

 

[Manc Skipper]

It should have equal time with phrenology, necromancy and astrology.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It really doesn't. People have theories and ideas about evolution but no one has seen one species evolve into another. None of us were present when life first formed whether that be due to an evolutionary process or a creator. Without this we can't say that there is concrete proof for something. Now, there is supporting evidence for evolution and creationism. Scientists may chose to interpret that evidence differently. There are very complex molecular processes that evolution cannot explain. It would be wrong to look at these things and say "X is complex therefore there is a designer" but it's not wrong to take these things as supporting evidence for a designer. It would be equally wrong to ignore these things and accept evolution as solid concrete truth and say "we know evolution is true, and even though we don't understand this process we can conclude that evolution created it."

"People have theories and ideas about evolution"

No, science has a theory called the theory of evolution. It also supports the germ theory of disease, and many other scientific theories.

There is no theory about the beginning of life. Some people believe in abiogenesis, but there is no proof that is possible at all. Some think life came from outer space, either on its own or with the help of extra terrestrial intelligence. None of that rises even close to the level of a scientific theory. When it comes to the origin of life, the only supportable phrase is, "we don't know."

 

[zgoldsmith23]

"People have theories and ideas about evolution"

No, science has a theory called the theory of evolution. It also supports the germ theory of disease, and many other scientific theories.

There is no theory about the beginning of life. Some people believe in abiogenesis, but there is no proof that is possible at all. Some think life came from outer space, either on its own or with the help of extra terrestrial intelligence. None of that rises even close to the level of a scientific theory. When it comes to the origin of life, the only supportable phrase is, "we don't know."

... yet!

0123

 

[Dittohead not!]

... yet!

0123

Correct. That can be said for a lot of things: We don't know yet.