should creationism be taught in schools?

The earth is not and has never been flat. That was never a creationist story. The Bible says clearly that the earth is a 'sphere that hangs on nothing. So whoever thought the earth was flat never read their Bible. Now it is proven that the earth is not flat and like all stupid stories, that had to be discarded. Exactly and the absolute reality is that ID is true and evolution is false.Just because you can't seem to understand the evidence that shows evolution to be false doesn't change the fact that what is true is true. At least we agree that they cannot both be true. ...or vica versa

If they believe evolution, yes -they started with believing in evolution and materialistic causes for everything and now they can't see the wood for the trees.Believing in evolution is not critical for experimental science so they have not altogether wasted their time.In fact there's a whole lot of great science out there and not everyone doing science uses evolution to prove what they are trying to prove. No not to a person -there are those that do not believe it and there are many that do not need to use it at all and therefore can carry on doing what they're doing with no ill effects nor incorrect conclusions.A surgeon may believe the theory of evolution but when he's doing surgery, believing it is not going to change what he does.Technical advances are not dependant on the theory of evolution.

And I stand by that -unfortunately neither can be proven as they are historical. I believe the one, you believe the other -we have the same facts, different interpretations.

Well that's just brilliant. Only thing is that I disagree with losing the evolution part -we have to deal with the consensus. Kids need to know why evolution is accepted and that it happens to be the consensus -for the moment -but they also need to know why it is not necessarily the truth and why some don't accept it despite the general acceptance.It's called a paradigm shift and I'm all for it. What's smart about disguise and obfuscate? This is about truth and that's all that's really important.

...in your humble opinion Yes but they were all human -I don't suppose that they were ape-like or even descendants of apes for that matter.Just a little variation and selection and that's the extent of it. Again -in your humble opinion...

On a cursory examination, they looks about right -only lets lose the eye story -that definately won't hold up under close scrutiny. In your opinion.
Remember ID opinions are censored for the most part apparently because they are so absurd so we'll have to go with the opinions of scientists that are not allowed to express themselves in main stream journals so are forced to present them via other means.

Well thanks for noticing. I'm trying to talk about what should be taught and yes I'm going off topic but only in order to respond. To all those demanding evidence -we are talking about why it should be taught in schools - I'll be happy to discuss what should be taught but in order to get to the evidence, another thread would be needed but I'm having too much fun here and I don't want to go.I feel like I have a pack of hyenas on my back just waiting to try to shred me for dinner.I really truelly believe in the existance of a creator for so many many reasons. I also believe there are more than enough scientific reason to believe that. I also know that being taught evolution helped me push the concept, and I believe reality, of God aside because evolution and the belief in a specific creator, the one in the Judeo-Christian Bible, do not gel. I accepted the one (evolution), I lost the other. You'd probably be surprised how many people have connected the dots the same way.Later when I started to read about the evidence against evolution (not micro), I felt cheated by a system that gave no choice and effectively took away my childhood belief in God by not allowing for that possibility; that taught as fact that which is not provable.Science by its nature cannot get into the realm of the supernatural even though it exists but then it should stick strictly to what is scientifically verifiable and present clearly as theories those things that are not provable (like pre-historical suppositions, inference and extrapolation.)The only history that we can be sure about is that found in history books and surprise, surprise, the Bible which discusses so much real verifiable history.It also gives geneologies of real people -we cannot prove each and every one mentioned existed by looking at other sources though many are verified by other historical sources.The facts given are very specific and real people cannot suddenly convert into mythological people as you go further back.Add up the geneologies and you get around 6000 years and a world wide flood to account for the massive fossil numbers with marine fossils making up the bulk (-first things to be covered with sediments?)OR you have evolution and millions of years.One discounts the other and both cannot be true.Science is not set back by not believing in evolution. Creationists and evolutionists accept variation and natural selection and science can deal with that and experiment accordingly. I fail to see why evolution as the only alternative should be taught.Creationists and ID proponents for the most part want the downside of evolution presented with evolution and that it should be taught as a theory, albeit a popular one. Most of them do not advocate doing away with evolution. They just want that element of doubt (which should rightly be there) to be presented alongside it.Instead of teaching that the rocks are old, teach how that thinking came about since they do not come with dating labels attached and just how do you see that a rock is old?
If you discuss radiometric dating as an aging method, discuss the assumptions which cause others to believe that the earth may not be as old as evolutionists think. Discuss possible accelerated decay and the helium still locked in the rock crystals that should have escaped millions of years ago.Let them know how the geologic time scale came about, the belief in a uniformatarian principle and why some believe it and some do not.No scientific advance is going to be compromised by admitting that there are arguments for either side that can be made. That is history and it is significant to many who believe absolutely that there is a creator and we did not evolve from any sort of ape.
When I watch national geographic and they try to pass off some sort of ape as an early human, I look and I see an ape all fixed up with a lot of artistic licence. Unless you believe the theory, you will never artistically turn that ape skull into something supposed to be pre-human. To us who don't believe it, it is like a sick delusion - only problem is too many really clever, absolutely sincere people believe it.
That's why I say, teach the controversy, give the kids a choice and let ongoing research have more options.

No, I'm not interested in self delusion. Holocaust deniers cannot be put together with evolution deniers. Holocaust deniers refuse direct historical evidence like photos and pictures and newspapers and eye-witness accounts. People that do not believe in evolution have no such direct historical accounts to deny.Fossils could mean anything -you have to put them in a frame of reference in order to make sense of them -that is a completely different concept.Besides if you were ever forced to teach such a thing as holocaust denial, all you have to do is bring out the historical evidence and explain why some people do believe it.Unfortunately Ahmadinejad's supporters won't be hearing any evidence of the holocaust in their schools anytime soon.No controversy, just refuse to allow the opponent's evidence in.

You have been indoctrinated here, I can assure you. Why invent it and for what purpose do you imagine.I've never heard such a story but I'm very interested to know what the advantages are to the proponents. This is just absurd. someone has really been giving you funny stories and I don't understand why. This again is ridiculous (not trying to be rude, just amazed). All they want is balanced teaching because evolution is all that is taught. They know they will not get evolution out since it is a consensus at the moment but they want to allow people to think rather than be indoctrinated by the official explanation without the opposing evidence getting a hearing. Variation and natural selection is important in bio because it is true but evolution in the macro sense is just not scientifically true, not verifiable, not testable, it is extrapolation pure and simple. Heard this argument before but it makes no sense -real science like natural selection and genetic variability would always have been allowed as it can be seen to be true. Communists learning macro-evolution as the history of life did not put them ahead in the least -that story still doesn't advance science and certainly not engineering in any way, shape or form.Just because they knew they were related to apes while we were unsure did not assist them in the space race in the least.
Technological advances have nothing to do with evolution! This is really the pot calling the kettle black. The only people who lose their jobs are creationists for not sticking to the popular evolution agenda. Their opposition is scientific and a lot of the ID people have no belief in any specific God but they can see design wherever they look (as can all the creationists, but they know who the creator is)Id proponents believe that means things are designed and not the random end result of mutations with no particular plan in mind.
A lot of ID proponents are not playing hide the Bible since they don't believe it in the first place but they see the evidence that points to a creator -a supernatural intelligence beyond the natural material world that had to have started everything since specified information cannot come from nowhere.Id proponents or anyone that supports the concept of creation in any sense get lumped together with creationists unfairly. Evolutionists often seem to imagine a conspiracy because they just can't seem to see what is obvious to both creationists and id proponents.ID proponents that do believe the Bible are leaving the Bible out purposefully only in order to confine themselves to what is apparent in the evidence.They're attempting to stick to the scientific evidence and not bring in their specific beliefs.You can tell the difference between an ID proponent that believes in the God of the Bible and those that don't mostly by the fact that they don't necessarily believe in thousands of years as opposed to millions.So to stick to the topic -only ID should be taught in the classroom in order to stick to the scientific evidence -teaching creation science is like advocating a specific God which then becomes more of a theological argument than a scientific one.I believe that particular argumnet but I don't propose that that should be taught if one remains strictly scientific with regard to the arguments. Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science. This entire argument stands against indoctrination and ignorance.

Scientific journals are reluctant to print anything that smells of opposition to evolution -in that way they are censored. Scientists that believe evolution (in the fuller sense)is not scientifically verifiable are forced to use other outlets while they struggle to get their ideas heard and accepted as valid. They are not creeping in through the back door -they are simply not allowed in the front door so they go through other doors in order to be heard.
Saying it is all rubbish is like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'go away, go away' while refusing to hear them.
It's like a judge who hears the one side's arguments and then when the other side is ready to present theirs, he decides without every sides testimony to give a verdict based on one side only.
This argument is not going to go away -it is going to gather momentum as more and more people understand the argument.And to stick to the point - creation/ID arguments against evolution need to be heard and then everyone can make up their minds.Teach both sides.If theirs nothing to it, it will fade out and you have nothing to worry about.Shouting lies, rubbish, insanity makes more people interested in what is going on. Quoting ID proponents to you even though they are every bit as learned in science as the evolutionists you admire, will not apparently move you one iota. Your verdict is through.

'Should creationism be taught' is what I see as the topic and I reiterate, no it should not. My contention is that ID and the evidence that opposes evolution should be taught, not creationism as such even though I believe the creation science perspective. I am still relatively new to this forum and am perhaps spending too much time replying to what is already being discussed to even think of getting to another. What's the point of having too many discussions to handle? When I say I'm having too much fun on this one, you presume I am laughing -what I am saying is that I am enjoying the debate that is occurring here and since I sometimes cannot say anything for days due to internet restraints, I don't want to leave every reply unsaid and move on - unless and until the discussion gets boring or else peters out naturally. No I don't think it is very likely that anyone is going to win but we are going to get some new ideas to challenge our arguments. i'm interested in all the arguments but sometimes it seems that you don't see what I see and vica versa. I do not believe that any dedicated evolutionist is being stupid on purpose or lying on purpose, yet so many evolutionists on this site seem dedicated to believing in conspiracies and complete stupidity as regards the opposing argument. There you go again assuming simple sources and incomplete understanding. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I do not understand why you persist in believing what you do. It is if the evolution that is being taught insists on random and undirected natural processes. That leaves God quite out of the equation and that is the message that kids get when they learn evolution at school. There is no design, it is all random and if it looks like design, it is not. That's what they teach and they teach it as if it were fact which naturally extracts the creator from the equation which is their point exactly.You don't have to mention God at all but the point is taken nonetheless and since it is not proven to be true it should not be allowed to be taught to the exclusion of other scientific possibilities. If the truth is that God exists, then 'science' should not be writing out of the equation that of which they know nothing.
If God exists then they are completely on the wrong track. You should not believe the Bible if you feel so inclined but neither should you teach that there is no possibility that it is true by forcing random undirected evolution following on spontaneous generation with no alternative down unsuspecting throats.
By the way neither should you trust your preacher to interpret the Bible -we have our language and the Bible correlates with itself -if you substitute preacher for own brain and ability to understand, you may find yourself in a cult.Even in a church it's advisable to take your own Bible along and check it out for yourself.It's supposed to be the Word of God and if God gave you a brain, you need to use it to understand what He is saying. The Bible starts with the very first people of all people and then follows the geneologies through to the Hebrew people who were chosen to write down and preserve the Word of God for all people -so it does mean to tell you of all people and the earth from the beginning. Except if it is truelly the Word of God as it claims to be, then God who made us knew what to do to make sure there was a record of all that happened in order to make sure we had the opportunity to believe or not. It's all about choice and its not so difficult to believe if you actually read it. They would be the first to be buried and the most numerous because they would be at the bottom and less likely to escape moving tumultuous sediment movement.Those higher up would have been more likely to drown, die, rot and leave no trace.
There is mention of the time of Peleg when the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down so everything was under water and then some parts full of sediments and fossils rose out of the water and the water washed off the high areas leaving marine fossils high and dry. Because many children don't go to church so they will never hear that side of things. Since children go to school, they will all have the opportunity to hear the evolution side of things.Also, one hour a week in church (for those who go) is unlikely to counter the evolutionary indoctination in the school because they will be left thinking the Bible is a mythical story and that science and reality insist that evolution is the truth. Personally I will teach my kids both sides so that they know what is generally accepted in science right now but also the controversy that exists and the reasons why. If anything I will be teaching them more evolution because I will spend time showing them the complete story not just that evidence that is used to support evolution. If the parents don't know how to defend their faith, then yes the children indoctrinated into evolution will believe they have been lied to and yes they will probably lose their faith. Yes that does sound absurd which is why I read the books and opinions of geologists that believe in ID to make quite sure that it is reasonable from the viewpoint of these other geologists that know exactly what they are talking about. But it is reasonable to suggest that if the face looks like a monkey, or an ape, it just might be one. Only evolutionists would ever conclude otherwise because that is what they are looking for and what they believe exists . Similarities, yes -but that does not mean we need to conclude evolution. Common designer, yes, but we are quite separate from the animals - of that I am certain. It depends how you read it and what you believed to begin with what you would conclude.We are far from being able to conclude relationships though we would expect somethings to be alike. That does not mean we are related. It is an interpretation of the data. If they want to prevent ID input then they are censoring the information.Give them the downside of the tale. They will be taught the popular view in science and the politically correct historical perspective. Everything is filtered. No it's to prevent the proselytizing to the evolution faith only. It is to keep the choice open so that children can still think, not just be told what to think. Since it is not true, I will be forced to deny it.I like the teach the controversy idea, then those who still wish to believe in evolution, after seeing all the evidence, are welcome to it.

Not religion -the scientific evidence for design. None, the scientific evidence for design. They don't need it - kids are in school all week.My father is a marine biologist, by the way.(you did ask, I think)

Neither do they need to -just teach the scientific evidence for design -ID -they can get the rest at church or not. I don't think anyone wants religion taught in the schools. They only want the evidence for design and possibly to balance evolution with a little bit of the evidence against it and preferably lose all the evolutionary proofs that are proven to be incorrect. Again it is not the teaching of religion that is being advocated -only the evidence for design. That's not religion, it is scientifically based and only science would be used, not any religion.

Well said and so obvious. I don't know why they can't seem to just see it and stop imagining covert operations.It's utterly frustrating.We get accused of being liars and fools just because people that can't see what's obvious are blind. Yes please!

You must be reading far more into this than it clearly states in order to call it dishonesty. Challenging the Darwinian aspects of science is pretty straightforward. My mouth is hanging open. Unless the truth is that there is a creator - in which case evolutionists has strayed far into the realms of invention and a religion of their own.You can't prove either side but some things are just obvious.It seems that what's obvious to you (evolution)is not obvious to me and vica versa.Organization requires intelligence (for example a cell). Information requires intelligence (for example DNA) - how random undirected processes even given millions of years could have produced such things requires fairy tales and wishful thinking of the highest order - in my humble opinion. Because they believe in a specific creator so 'intelligent design' makes sense to them. However they are far from 'usually Christian fundamentalists'.That is the standard accusation levelled at anyone professing to believe that there has to be a designer.Evolutionists seem to see a 'Christian fundamentalist' under every rock.If evolution is questioned -ha! -you have to be a Christian fundamentalist in hiding.That is fantasy.
I could imagine there is a closet atheist hiding behind every evolutionist but even if I kept making the accusation, it would never evolve my fantasy into reality. Only in your imagination, Granny! Edited by Beretta, : IncompleteEdited by Beretta, : corrected formattingEdited by Beretta, : Formatting still incorrect