should creationism be taught in schools?

Great: what is the theory involved, what is the supporting evidence that leads to the theory, what is the prediction of the theory that results in some different result from evolution so that it can be tested (falsified)?And if ID should be taught, then shouldn't we teach both sides of the design controversy?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I haven't been educated deeply in the supporting evidence of either, sorry. However, I think that schools should teach both sides.

So you are advocating teaching something without any CLUE to whether there even IS any supporting evidence?What's your feeling about teaching astrology?Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

There are billions of 'where are they all' missing links that falsify the theory of evolution. No problem, make up a new plan called 'punctuated equilibrium' to take care of the lack of evidence.
So this is a theory that can't be falsified - in that case it can't count as a theory .So if it's not a theory (can't be falsified) -should it be taught in school then? The evidence supports creation better than evolution and creation as a possibility has not been falsified so which one should we teach? Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete answer

This is a prime example of the sort of fatuous ignorant lie that we can't expect science teachers to teach to children.You will notice also that it is not an argument in favor of teaching the fairy-story about the talking snake. If what you said had a grain of truth in it, that would be a reason for not teaching evolution, not an argument for teaching the pitiful fantasies of religious zealots.

If you know that you don't know anything about the subject, why do you have an opinion?

Choose your words more carefully. As you have just pointed out, you don't actually know about the evidence for evolution. So your inability to think of such evidence is rather irrelevant, isn't it?Perhaps ... in fact, indubitably ... the Paleontological Society know something you don't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

* sighs *

quote:

---

The evidence supports creation better than evolution and creation as a possibility has not been falsified so which one should we teach?

---

Hi Beretta,Since you hold this position, I would like to invite you to address the OP in my thread, How can Biologists believe in the ToE?.I am very interested in reading your response. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

One thing that should be taught in schools is basic logic. Missing links don't falsify a chain. It's the existing links that verify the chain.Suppose you're digging in your garden and you dig up two rusty iron rings, linked together. A few feet away, you dig up another single ring. A few feet farther, you dig up two more linked rings. Do you conclude that the three finds are completely unrelated? Or do you conclude that they were once all linked together and some of the links have gone missing?Creationism denies the clear-thinking solution in favour of the fuzzy-thinking solution. That isn't teaching, it's un-teaching.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OK, show some.

Sorry, it is a fact as well as a theory. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed every day. Speciation has also been observed. AiG even admits this. Do you know what "macroevolution" is? Really?Did you see Message 107? Or the earlier post addressed to you at Message 71?Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The chain that evolutionists have already decided exists.Logic???I would certainly be of the position that those iron rings are connected -you're right that would be logical. However, if you find a human body in your back yard and another deeper down in the rock layers a few miles away and then the skeleton of an orangutan at an even deeper level in the same approximate region -what does this tell you? If you're a creationist you'd only conclude that all 3 died and were buried at different levels for different possible reasons -perhaps their bodies were washed there from somewhere else altogether and deposited at different levels but unlike the evolutionist you would certainly not conclude any kind of relationship between the humans and the orangutan. This is simplistic but illustrates the basic logic problem -only evolutionists would potentially conclude some sort of genetic relationship between an ape like creature and humans in general.The same basic lack of logic is seen where evolutionists assume a priori that the earth is billions of years old (to support the concept of evolution, you naturally have to have at least 100's of millions of years). So what do they do? They attach abnormal importance to the radiometric dating methods that (despite many assumptions)support their contention that the earth is billions of years old and ignore so many many other dating methods that support a young earth. Where's the logic? How about presenting the evidence for a young earth as well as that for an old earth and deciding which ones have more presuppositions attached to the basic method.For these sorts of reasons, I say both sides of the debate should be allowed to present the evidence for and against their positions and people should be inspired to continue to search for the truth since the truth is historical and cannot be experimentally repeated and proven.If evolution happened, I have nothing to lose.If creation is true, people should know that it is a scientific possibility and that evolution is by no means proven. If creation is true and they choose evolution given both sides of the story, they have a lot to lose but at least they get to choose.Teaching evolution only is like teaching communism only behind the iron curtain -no other possibility is acceptable to the powers that be.

How about we did that 150 years ago, and settled the debate?Creationism was already proven wrong. Why should we teach it in schools, when the debate is over?

Yup. No, scientists have lots of dating methods. There aren't any. How about it? Start a thread. But creationism isn't true, it is not a scientific possibility, and evolution is proven. ... teaching that 2 + 2 = 4.---Could I remind you once again that whining about evolution is not evidence for creationism.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.