|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the teaching of evolution we must not forget to integrate the "creation's point of view." For example, evolution says that we descended from the primates, but have we ever seen a present day primate turns into human being? I don't see why we mustn't forget to integrate the creation's point of view. We don't integrate the flat earth point of view do we? We have never seen a primate that turns into a human being, I don't think that makes any sense to consider. We have seen primates that give birth to humans. My own parents were primates in fact.
God might have copied the same, did a little modifications on it and created the Australopithecus. Then, copied the same design, modified it, created another, and so on.
The joys of positing an all powerful being is that he coulda done anything. Yes, he could have done that, or he could have created them all at the same time, or created a small group of 'Kinds' which micro evolved. Or perhaps he didn't really create any of them, and we are all angels dreaming of flesh in paradise. Perhaps Bialyabog created spirit and Czernobog created flesh, and the laughing god with the brass moustache steals children if they enter the forest without wearing their clothes backwards before tickling them to death.
In my own understanding, creation and evolution must be taught in a unified approach because they are the same schools of thought viewed like the two sides of a "single coin."
Should we also teach that space and time are absolute? Should we teach that the earth is the centre of the solar system? That rain comes through holes in the heavens? These things are all two sides of the same coin. My opinion is that creationism should be brought up, to put evolution into historical context. I was taught about creationism and ID as a youngster as ideas that came before evolution. I have no problem with that being brought up, I think it is useful to teach the history of an idea, and what ideas came before it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Here in the U.S. we have another motive to teach creationism. Namely, it is a very important political issue in this country, and provides an excellent opportunity to explain what exactly is science and how it works, and how we can use science to eliminate alternative ideas. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
knitrofreak Inactive Member |
I think that both should be taught because they are the only two ways that people think we got here. People think that creationism is too religous so you cant have it in school. It just shows there is a creator and everyone can make that choice WHO that creator is or if he doesnt even believe in one. It would be bias to only teach creationism or evolutionism alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I think that both should be taught because they are the only two ways that people think we got here. If you are going to defince 'Creationism' this broadly then it is going to be impossible to teache, you will either need a course covering every creation mythology or you will just need 5 minutes to say, 'oh, some people believe that the Earth and living beings were created by some divine being or beings', and that will be it.
It just shows there is a creator and everyone can make that choice WHO that creator is or if he doesnt even believe in one. Except it doesn't show it, it just claims it.
It would be bias to only teach creationism or evolutionism alone. Except that it is an apples and oranges situation. If there were an equality of quantity and quality of evidence supporting the 2 positions you might be right, as it is you aren't. Welcome to the board by the way. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I think that both should be taught because they are the only two ways that people think we got here. Hardly. The Judeo-Christian Creation myth is not the sole non-evolution exploration of human origins. Every religion has its own description of our origins, and not all of them involve special Creation. Should we teach them all?
People think that creationism is too religous so you cant have it in school. My main objection is that it's not scientific enough. I don't care if the idea came from an old collection of stories - if there is scientific evidence to back it up, then it is perfectly acceptible in school. The issue is that there is literally zero evidence for the Creation myth - it has, in fact, been disproven in nearly every way imaginable by modern science - 6000 year old Earth? Wrong. Universe (or even just the planet) created in seven days? Nope. Light created before the sun? Wow, that's not even close. I could go on.
It just shows there is a creator and everyone can make that choice WHO that creator is or if he doesnt even believe in one. And how is this shown? Because a really old collection of stories tells us so? That's hardly evidence. And science isn't a democratic process - nobody gets to "decide for themselves" whether the Earth is flat or spherical. This is called the Golden Mean fallacy - giving an "alternative theory" equal time in the science classroom is rediculous, because scientifically one of those positions is simply wrong.
It would be bias to only teach creationism or evolutionism alone. Yes, it would. Only science would be taught in a science classroom. Sounds reasonable to me. It's utterly rediculous to teach every hairbrained idea ever thought up in an old book to students as if it's on equal grounds with a theory that's been tested and passed through the peer review process. It's simply not on the same level. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
generaljoe Inactive Member |
As far as teaching creationism and the bible for that matter. I believe we should also teach Lord of the Rings. I mean, they both contain issues for people to think about evil and good etc, and many kids would be far more interested in LOTR to learn these ideas. I mean, just because a majority believe in god doesnt mean that kids have to be taught from a young age about this 1 book and decide for 'thereselves'.
It a schools job to help children think, not brainwash (and by brainwash i mean that many MANY schools will imply that the bible is true, especially by christian teachers in the US). Not to teach them things that are read from a book that has no (well hardly any) scientific evidence. I mean lets face it, science is god. Christians who deny science are also denying that we cant land on mars and computers are tthe working of god. Christians who do believe in science deny the 'facts' of the bible (noahs arc, creation). Yet these christians also argue that the bible is still a model for their lives. I think that that line of thought is also invalid, considering that the bible being taught as fact was taught for the last 2000 years until recently (and in some circumstances still is), what makes the neo christians suddenly change there attitude? How much 'evidence' do they need? (for this last argument i am reffering to christians who do beliieve in scientific methods, carbon dating etc). If we followed the 'true' christian way, we'd be stuck in the 1300's because we wouldnt be allowed to genetically enginneer plants/food etc for our growing population, no sex, holy wars (just look at the current muslims, sure they are oppressed but european society when goverened by christian kings/popes was the same as well aka. the crusades). I am certain that christianity will plague the earth with child molestering priests, cults, fanatics. I know this isnt the design for the religion, but the proof is in the pudding. Christianity had its chance, and look at what happened when it was followed. Do you really want kids learning this at school? I believe it should be up to the parents to decide whether there child will learn about the bible at home, just as it is the same for every muslem, buddhist, hindu etc. As far as evolution is concerned, it should be taught because even if the general idea is false, many scientific proofs can be found (ie how to distinguish phylum, common traits). Anyways, creationism is a story from a book. I mean if we are going to tech that why not teach the dreamtime? the Koran? i mean the possiblities are endless.\ IF religion is a subject of course it should be taught, but not in the general domain. (let the flamers come!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
carini Inactive Member |
Evolution should be taught in science classes because its based on scientific knowledge about biology, chemistry, and physics.
Creationism should be taught in history class because its based on some 2000+ year old text that has not one inkling of anything that could be called scientific in it. It is a creation myth based on people with no knowledge of how the world really worked. All peoples have creation myths, just because its from the bible doesnt make it anymore relevant then anyone elses creation myths. Some are based on a snake giving birth to the world, some are based on birds, etc. Its just a story. Creationism is not a theory, its history and should be taught as such. To me believing in creationism would be like me still believing in santa claus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
As I posted in Pandas Thumb, my daughter had a 7th grade science teacher who stated before the entire class that she did not believe in evolution. In the same grade the social studies teacher stated she did not believe in the Bering Strait migration. This was in a public school supported by compulsory taxation.
This may be wildly OT, however I personally consider such public pronouncements in taxpayer-supported public schools against the prevailing scientific evidence an example of misuse of public funds. Fundamentalist Christians, by marginalizing the message of Jesus' teaching through parables in the New Testament and trading the critical examination of the Christian religion in favor of the simple- minded worship of money and power-grubbing false prophets, are essentially doing the work of the devil. In the United States, by trying to destroy science teaching in the classroom, the fundamentalists are doing the work of the enemies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by subverting the nation's economic and, therefore, military viability. It is my personal opinion that Fundamentalist Christianity is against both God and Country. This message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 03:58 AM This message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 03:59 AM This message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 04:01 AM This message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 04:03 AM This message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 04:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthsearcher Inactive Member |
-Listen to this article published by Apologetics Press (Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Testability - Apologetics Press) and I would like to hear your rebuttal for it. I believe it pretty clearly confirms not only the scientific validity of creation but even the falsehood of evolution.
AbE - Administrative removal of article except for the references. - The Queen REFERENCESBehe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press). Butt, Kyle (2005), “The SETI Project, Falling “Floppy Discs,” and A Major Missed Implication,” [On-line], URL: The SETI Project, Falling Floppy Discs, and A Major Missed Implication - Apologetics Press. Dembski, William A. (1999), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press). Gendall, Michael (2005), “Religious Course Stresses Mythology,” [On-line], URL: http://badgerherald.com/...05/11/29/religious_course_str.php. Hoffman, Jonathan (2005), “Scientific Theories More Than Guesses,” [On-line], URL: http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051129column.php. IQtest Home Page (2005), [On-line], URL: Just a moment.... Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House). Moe, Martin A. (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December. Thomas, Laurel (2005), “UNLV Teachers Dismiss ”Design’ Theory,” [On-line], URL: http://unlvrebelyell.com/article.php?ID=880. Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004. Thompson, W.R. (1956), “Introduction,” Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (New York: Dutton: Everyman’s Library). Wald, George (1963), Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World). This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-04-2006 05:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Hi truthsearcher, and welcome to EvC.
We tend to frown on debating web pages here, and fair use practices tend to frown on complete cut and paste jobs. For future reference, it would be nice for you to present your argument in your own words and use the links to support your post. In my signature box you will find several links that will help you find your way around here. Of particular benefit for newcomers and oldtimers alike are our Forum Guidelines Again, welcome to EvC. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The argument is fatally flawed.
To point otu some of the more serious errors.
Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals.
They should certainly not "recognise" any such thing because it is not true.
Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes.
This is not true either. More accurately we have not yet discovered the circumstances under which life might arise, but it is a very difficult problem and research is continuing because progress is still being made. THe comparison of ID with SETI is also false. SETI relies specifically on making assumptions about what the presumed intelligent source would do. ID advocates refuse to consider this issue at all. WHich is why ID does not generate testable hypotheses and that is one of the reasons why ID is not science. The claims about IQ tests are simply bizarre. None of the ID arguments are based on anything like IQ tests, rather they are typically attempts to falsify evolution - and Behe's irreducible complexity argument is just such an argument (and one that has failed).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthsearcher Inactive Member |
thanks for welcoming me and thanks for the copy/paste advice. I just was being quick about things
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Welcome to EvC truthsearcher.
Here is a major mistake in that essay:
In an attempt to discredit intelligent design, supporters of evolution have made and repeated one primary line of attack. They posit that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested. This is incorrect. The major attempt to discredit ID consists in (correctly) pointing out that ID supporters have not been able to present a testable theory of ID that has not been tested and shown to be flawed. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems have been shown to not be irreducibly complex, and even Behe has admitted that evolution can produce irreducibly complex systems. Dembsky's theories have been shown to rely on flawed assumptions, and, at any rate, are just the fallacy of personal incredulity with numbers attached. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: There is another difference between SETI and ID. SETI is trying to detect signals that are a deliberate attempt at communication (one of the assumptions of intent that you mention). ID is trying to detect the evidence of design in things do not seem to serve any function at all for the designer (which is also the difference between ID and archaeology), a much harder task, it seems to me, even if some biological system has been designed. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
From the first article alone - "In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism."
What is this forum? Evolution is science, but "Christian fundamentalism," creationism, and ID are not Christian as they promote bearing false witness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024