should creationism be taught in schools?

Beretta, you have been invited a number of times to offer your facts, interpretations, explanations and what have you.Many people who think like you do have claimed that there are alternative explanations. When they find out how difficult it is to explain all the facts they have always given up and gone.You will not be allowed to continue making statements about the supposed alternatives without supplying support for those. This thread requires that you support your assertions.Since it is very, very difficult you'll be given lots of time to do it. There will be nothing for you to copy from the web that hasn't already been shredded here more than once so go slowly and carefully.This is a great learning opportunity for you.

And they are welcome to their opinion.
I believe that we should teach evolution and ID to kids -not everyone's story -from there they can decide.Evolution should not be presented as a fact even if it is the consensus of the moment. If there is evidence against it, that should be presented alongside it.
Removing evolution from it's pedestal won't arrest the progress of science.
Variation and natural selection are accepted by both camps as they can be seen,demonstrated and repeated as is required by the scientific method. Anything beyond that is conjecture, extrapolation, possible inference but not fact so forget the 'evolution is a fact' part,stick to what the evidence actually shows and only teach the children what we know for sure and give them the range of possibilities that are not excluded by the facts. I agree, lets not do that. No, not at all. My father is one of those and he is very special to me. He is extremely clever and unfortunately he believes in evolution.I know why he believes in evolution -for the same reason that I did. It was taught as fact and then he specialized into his own narrow field just like everyone else. Until I started giving him feedback, he never really ever questioned the paradigm. Why would he?He never had time for that amongst his many other missions in life.As is the case with many other evolutionists, my questioning of the accepted paradigm made him angry. I can only think that he thought that I was implying that he was stupid.(Human pride, a common problem) That was the last thing on my mind. Many very intelligent people believe untrue things in life -there is so much out there,just because they are clever does not make them all knowing.They can be brilliant in one direction and completely uneducated in another. The theory of evolution thrives in this environment.For example, most people are not aware of the many assumptions that radiometric dating, the geologic column and fossil interpretation use as foundations.Biologists assume that geologists have correctly identified the age of rocks. Geologists assume that chemists have correctly identified the half-life of the different isotopes. Chemists assume that physicists have correctly identified the details of radioactive decay. This chain of assumptions supporting evolution brings down the entire structure if any one of the links is weak.Over the past year and many articles sent back and forth, my father has come from complete disinterest,to anger, suspicion, concern for me and finally the feeling that both sides should be taught.He's still an evolutionist but he gets my point to an extent. The first time he mentioned his contention that both sides should be taught to an evolutionist at his university, he was shunned by this individual.Very difficult for someone who fitted in so well before.
I have no doubt that his desire to be fair is being misinterpreted by the evolutionist as religious in nature even though my father has no interest nor belief in God.
Opposing a dominant paradigm is not an easy business -in fact it's not even good for business at all -but for the truth, I believe that it is worth it.

Thank you admin nosy for your encouragement. I am doing my best so far given limitations on my internet connection which sometimes will not work at all despite numerous efforts to get back to people that I would like to reply to.
I will endeavour to get to the facts as the replies and questions allow. I am not planning on going anywhere.

And yet strangely you provide no evidence at all, just assertion of what you believe to be.Why should beliefs opposing science have any place in science classes?Random mutation however has been observed, detected, and verified, as has the fact that hereditary traits are due to genes and mutations.Evolution - change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - has also been observed, detected and verified, with no known life form NOT exhibiting evolution.If you want to discuss this further you can go to Message 1 and continue there.If this is what you call evidence of a creator then it is a concept that cannot be distinguished from evolution without further definition on your part, which hardly makes it a superior concept nor one of an "alternate interpretation" of the facts. And again you FAIL to provide this evidence. I have seen no evidence contradicting evolution, so I say your claim is a falsehood.Now is another opportunity for you to prove me wrong by providing evidence. I bet you FAIL to provide this again. You will FAIL because it does not exist.If you really had evidence that contradicted evolution it would be invalidated and you would not need to play this game of making assertions that aren't true. It is. It has been observed, many times. Even creationists have seen it. Even AiG notes that speciation has been observed. That is between you and whoever told you this. Why do you need to bring religion into a discussion of the science, the facts and the evidence? Are they? Or do they make no compromise with facts and the reality that we know? If you assume a creator such as you claim, then the universe of evidence is the work of this creator, reality is the book he wrote, and how can you compromise with that?I think that people that hold on to falsified beliefs in spite of evidence that contradicts it are compromisers.Perhaps it is your interpretation or the interpretations of people who have told you this that are at fault. Nope. Calling people with different beliefs from you stupid would seem to be the only "evidence" you have eh? Logical fallacies are not evidence of anything but failure to make a good argument, ad hominums inclouded. No theory is proven, but scientific theories, like the theory of evolution, are based on facts, and they make predictions that can be tested. If you only want solid facts around you, then you can only trust things that can be validated by everyone. They "say" what they are. Like all evidence they can be understood or misunderstood, but they are evidence for reality. Nope. You have to accept them for being true and then try to understand what that truth is. You can try several different ideas, and you can test those ideas against other facts, evidence, observations, but you can't just make up any interpretation you want and call it real. Without testing there is no validation that what you think you understand is real. The concepts that stand up to testing can be taken as valid while those that do not stand up to testing are invalidated, falsified, shown to be wrong. The concept of a young earth is one such falsified concept. It's not a matter of interpretation, but of testing of ideas, particularly scientific ideas. This includes falsified concepts like a flat earth, a young earth, a young universe, a global flood, that evolution does not occur, and that anyone can interpret evidence however they see fit regardless of how it matches reality. There is no evidence that contradicts evolution.There is evidence that contradicts a young earth.There is evidence that contradicts a young universe.There is evidence that contradicts a global flood.See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for some of this evidence.Science does not include untested ideas nor ideas that are contradicted by facts, which is why falsified concepts are discarded as soon as they are discovered to be false.There is no such thing as "both" -- proving that 2 does not equal 3 does not make 1 equal three -- unless you argue that both reality and non-reality - fantasy and delusion - should be taught as science. But the "ID position" is no position, unless you call the position "anytime you can't prove something we'll assume god" is a valid position.Taken to it's logical conclusion the "ID position" is deism, which we can discuss further if you want. And still there is no "evidence against evolution" presented. You could end the discussion by presenting it instead of just blindly claiming that it exists. That depends on whether you are willing to test concepts against the evidence of reality to see whether or not we understand reality.Whether you want to find out the truth of the universe.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spEdited by RAZD, : end

---

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.

So why are you allowing yourself to be distracted with making false assertions?You claimed to have that rarest of things: an actual creation model.So why don't you just present it?You claim to have a large volume of evidence for that actual creation model.So why don't you just present it?You weren't lying to us, were you? You weren't deliberately practicing a deception, were you? Christians are supposed to serve the "God of Truth". How could the God of Truth, or a god who explicitly personifies himself as "the Truth", possibly be served by lies and deception. I was taught that there is a Christian deity who is served by lies and deception, but what Christian would choose to serve that deity?Unless he were tricked into it by a false theology.So, why don't you simply present that actual creation model and the evidence for that actual creation model.Unless you know already that neither exists. Which brings us directly to the other questions.I believe that the standard Americanism is: "Put up or shut up."
Translated, that means that we're calling your bluff. It's a poker expression.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

I agree. But there isn't any.If you think there is, start a thread. Put up or shut up. That would be evolution. * sniggers gently *Even if this was true, each specialist would notice if evolution contradicted anything in his particular field.Meanwhile creationism flourishes in the fertile soil of complete ignorance and misinformation. But none of them is. Nor is any of these thing an "assumption", 'cos they can be verified.What happened to those "young earth dating methods" you believe in? Can you name one of them yet?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There isn't any. This is why creationists are compelled to make up such a lot of silly lies as a substitute. The biggest lie of creationism.Evolution is a theory predicting the facts, which confirm it.Creationists don't even look at the facts, since facts are of no use in propping up a hypothesis that is known to be false. Instead hey look at silly lies made up by other creationists. Then how do you teach creationism?Let me put that another way. How do science teachers who know science, and are aware that creationist lies are lies, teach creationism?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why should I.D. take priority over other creationist beliefs? Is there more evidence for it, and if so, what is that evidence?Actually, there is no consensus I.D. theory amongst I.D. supporters. They cannot decide what the intelligent designer designs, and what he doesn't design, and they never will be able to. On one extreme, some have 99% of the story of life on earth being evolution, with the designer contributing soft touches, and on the other extreme, some want the designer to design each individual species. Then there's everything in between.This is because there's no evidence of the designer designing anything, so anyone can make up what they want to. It's a matter of Faith.Whether you know it or not, the reason you're not actually presenting any evidence for creationism/I.D. to back up your assertions is that there isn't any. These "theories" are not taught in biology for the same reason that the anatomy of the unicorn isn't taught. There's nothing to go on.

Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?Also, do you accept DNA paternity testing as based in fact?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

A lot of people have been asking you for evidence to substantiate your various assertions. Let's try to put this in context.You want some ID principal to be taught ...... let's pretend I am a student and know nothing about ID or evolution or science: it's science class -- what do you teach?LESSON 1: ?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.

Hi Beretta,I'll just reemphasize a familiar point: this thread asks whether creationism should be taught in schools. It isn't about evolution.Creationism isn't taught in schools because it is understood to be religion, not science. We teach accepted science in science class. To become accepted as science requires a period of study and research that is described in peer-reviewed papers in science journals and at conferences. Once a new idea becomes accepted by the scientific community, then it can be taught in science class.The scientific community not only doesn't accept creationism, it rejects it. In fact, it rejected it well over a hundred years ago. If creationists think they have new ideas that would pass muster as science then they have to present them to scientists rather than to church congregations and school boards, in particular not to school boards. It is the responsibility of school boards to make sure their curriculums properly cover current scientific understanding, and they should not be asked to make decisions about what is and isn't science. Scientists do that.--Percy

Actually, we've seen what he would teach.He'd teach that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes"; that the eruption of Mount St Helens produced "hydrological sorting" (which is a conflation of two unrelated creationist arguments); that the modern cultivated banana is not a product of artificial selection; that the "starting point" of evolution is disbelief in a transcendent creator; that evolution is "the world religion"; that the nineteenth century geologists who rejected "flood geology" were "atheist or materialistic"; that "there are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution"; that the Cambrian Explosion was "sudden".But how is a science teacher to teach this mumbo-jumbo?Especially if creationist rubbish is to be put side by side with the facts?One day, she's teaching that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", the next day she teaches real biology --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day Mount St Helens produces "hydrological sorting", the next day the children learn what "hydrological" means --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day she teaches them that the banana was made by God by magic, the next day she teaches them that its a cultivar and describes the known history of its cultivation --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day she raves about atheism and materialism, the next day she teaches them what the theory of evolution actually is --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day, she lies about geologists, the next day she tells the truth --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day, she tells them the Cambrian Explosion was "sudden", the next day she tells them that it took 35 million years --- and the children find out that she was lying.Even if she could swallow her integrity and teach what she knows to be lies to children, she would still face the problem that if she also teaches them the facts, she will be exposed as a liar.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The question is not what he would teach but how he would teach it. By bald assertion alone? That is the question eh?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.

Oh, I forgot to ask you in my other message; what kind of Biologist is your father? What does he study?

Actually those are tested observations not assumptions, and to "bring it down" you would need to invalidate, not weaken, a link ... if it were indeed as you say ... but let's take this as a teaching point:Assume that geology is wrong about the physical dates: what is now invalid about evolution?Please be specific.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.