Creationism vs evolution in public schools.

[Gamma Male]

So, should creationism be taught as an alternative to evolution? Should evolution not even be taught at all? What do you think?

I'll start off the thread by clearing something up.
Evolution is a scientific fact. It happened, and it is still happening. The statement "Evolution isn't real!" isn't an opinion, it's simply false.
If there were a religion that believed 2+2=4 is wrong, would the school system be obligated to present religious alternatives to basic math? No. If a parent wants to tell their child that science is bullshit and that Akatosh, the dragon of time, created the earth and it's inhabitants that's fine. But public schools should only teach Science and Fact, and not personal religious opinions.

[Camazotz]

I'm with you for the same reason; science class is for science, not mythology. It's fine if you believe in whatever gods you please, but there are certain places where pseudoscience doesn't belong, and the science classroom is one of them.

Teaching creationism will confuse students about what science is all about: the scientific method. You need to not only make a claim, but back it up with repeatable evidence. Creationism makes a claim for a divine creator, but there's absolutely nothing scientific about the "evidence" creationists bring. The whole movement was a ploy by religious people to get God into public schools; keep it in your private school, at home, and in your churches. By bringing up "you can't prove he's not real, therefore he's real" arguments in a science class is completely moronic, utterly ridiculous, and counter-intuitive to every scientific work over the past 500 years.

[phuckphace]

nobody believes in 6-day Creationism anymore except goofy provincial Evangelicals in Murrica. even the Catholic Church has officially endorsed the scientific consensus on evolution. so it's not even a religion vs. secularism debate like the Evangelicals are dishonestly trying to portray it because plenty of Christians accept evolution as fact.

[Camazotz]

nobody believes in 6-day Creationism anymore except goofy provincial Evangelicals in Murrica. even the Catholic Church has officially endorsed the scientific consensus on evolution. so it's not even a religion vs. secularism debate like the Evangelicals are dishonestly trying to portray it because plenty of Christians accept evolution as fact.

I don't know about you, but one-third (http://www.livescience.com/42251-politics-evolution-belief.html) is 33% too many evolution deniers-stupid people for me.

[Lovelife090994]

I don't know about you, but one-third (http://www.livescience.com/42251-politics-evolution-belief.html) is 33% too many evolution deniers-stupid people for me.

Hello. I am Christian and believe God made the Heavens and the Earth but I am educated on evolution but take both as fact. Is that too much or too little for you?

[Horatio Nelson]

I would prefer that creationism be taught. But of course that won't happen. I choose to ignore evolution when it is presented to me.

[Lovelife090994]

To me schools should teach both. They teach us of Islam and Buddhism, why not Christianity? The history is lengthy enought o be a course. Teach both sides, students are smart enough to know the difference and stand by their own ideas.

[Abyssal Echo]

Since there are valid arguments for both theories I think both should be taught then leave it up to the student to decide which they chose to believe.

[Sir Suomi]

Question is, who's Creation theory? The Greek's? The Egyptian's? The Native American's? Seriously, if someone is dumb enough to think that children need to be taught about the "Christian" Creation theory, they're going to have to realize that on the same grounds every single other Creation theory must be given the same amount of teaching.

"But everyone knows those others aren't real, so why should we teach it", some may ask. It's when then I simply reply, "That's why putting in a Christian Creation theory into our public education system is ridiculous".

If you want to get closer to your god, go to church. But keep it away from the children, and let them decide for themselves what they want to believe in after the facts have been put in front of them.

[Gamma Male]

Since there are valid arguments for both theories I think both should be taught then leave it up to the student to decide which they chose to believe.
Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a proven fact. Creationism is a baseless religious opinion. Evolution is fact, and universally accepted within the scientific community as true. Should we teach alternatives to other proven facts because a minority of parents object? Should we teach alternatives to gravity or math because it goes against some parents religious beliefs? No. The science classroom is for science, and fact, and evidence, not religion.

To me schools should teach both. They teach us of Islam and Buddhism, why not Christianity? The history is lengthy enought o be a course. Teach both sides, students are smart enough to know the difference and stand by their own ideas.

Plently of highschools already teach comparative religion and religious history. That's fine. But religion does not belong in the science classroom. Evolution is the only valid scientific theory that accurately explains how humans got here. Creationism isn't science. If you wanna believe it, that's great, but it shouldn't be presented alongside evolution in a science classroom when it isn't science.

[Lovelife090994]

Plently of highschools already teach comparative religion and religious history. That's fine. But religion does not belong in the science classroom. Evolution is the only valid scientific theory that accurately explains how humans got here. Creationism isn't science. If you wanna believe it, that's great, but it shouldn't be presented alongside evolution in a science classroom when it isn't science.

All ideas of Creationism regardless of religion has it's arguments, cases, and believers. Teach them and teach students to quit judging Creationists and talking about them like dogs. Religious studies are great and depending on the religion can be the history of the region but Creation is the origin of life. Teach it all, be fair.

Question is, who's Creation theory? The Greek's? The Egyptian's? The Native American's? Seriously, if someone is dumb enough to think that children need to be taught about the "Christian" Creation theory, they're going to have to realize that on the same grounds every single other Creation theory must be given the same amount of teaching.

"But everyone knows those others aren't real, so why should we teach it", some may ask. It's when then I simply reply, "That's why putting in a Christian Creation theory into our public education system is ridiculous".

If you want to get closer to your god, go to church. But keep it away from the children, and let them decide for themselves what they want to believe in after the facts have been put in front of them.

If students will believe whatever they want then regardless of the information they will stand by it. I was taught of the tenants of Islam and I am still Christian. Religious studies won't convert those who stand by something.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Sir Suomi]

If students will believe whatever they want then regardless of the information they will stand by it. I was taught of the tenants of Islam and I am still Christian. Religious studies won't convert those who stand by something.

My whole point is that in order to be as fair as possible, equal presentation of every theory of Creation from every religion has to be shown. Otherwise then we are favoring some religions over others. You simply cannot pick and choose only the things you want. Oh, but it's fine to have that viewpoint in your case. Religions tend to do that.

[Abyssal Echo]

[QUOTE=Gamma Male;2794690]Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a proven fact. Creationism is a baseless religious opinion. Evolution is fact, and universally accepted within the scientific community as true. Should we teach alternatives to other proven facts because a minority of parents object? Should we teach alternatives to gravity or math because it goes against some parents religious beliefs? No. The science classroom is for science, and fact, and evidence, not religion.

There is a valid argument for both theories. I never said either one belong in a science class.

[Gamma Male]

All ideas of Creationism regardless of religion has it's arguments, cases, and believers. Teach them and teach students to quit judging Creationists and talking about them like dogs. Religious studies are great and depending on the religion can be the history of the region but Creation is the origin of life. Teach it all, be fair.

Nobody's saying schools shouldn't have religious studies. This debate is about whether or not creationism should be taught in the science classroom. You can teach students about the bible in a history or social studies class, but you can't teach them from the bible, or present the bible as fact. Especially not in science classrooms.

[QUOTE=Gamma Male;2794690]Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a proven fact. Creationism is a baseless religious opinion. Evolution is fact, and universally accepted within the scientific community as true. Should we teach alternatives to other proven facts because a minority of parents object? Should we teach alternatives to gravity or math because it goes against some parents religious beliefs? No. The science classroom is for science, and fact, and evidence, not religion.

There is a valid argument for both theories. I never said either one belong in a science class.

Yes you did. You said they should both be taught in schools.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Lovelife090994]

My whole point is that in order to be as fair as possible, equal presentation of every theory of Creation from every religion has to be shown. Otherwise then we are favoring some religions over others. You simply cannot pick and choose only the things you want. Oh, but it's fine to have that viewpoint in your case. Religions tend to do that.

Excuse me? What do mean religions tend to do that? And what? I think all faith's creation stories should be taught. In the case of America, Christian Creationism was taught given how a majority of families were Christian and agreed with it. Nowadays things are different. We still have many Christians but like all the other religious groups we are often too quiet which is why no one's Creationism is taught.

[phuckphace]

to add to my previous post, I don't particularly care if regular people believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, sure it's silly given what we now know about the orgin of the species, but it's harmless IMO. it's the public figures like Kent Hovind and megachurch bosses like John Hagee who hold most of the blame for suppressing any consideration of alternative views (such as a non-literal approach to interpreting Genesis, and a theistic one toward evolution.) they remain mired in their dogma for petty political and partisan reasons rather than a genuine desire to know the truth.

I just think it's important to note that everyone in the West believed in a literal 6-day Creation just a few centuries back but that didn't get in the way of them making lots of important discoveries and founding our civilization.

[Lovelife090994]

to add to my previous post, I don't particularly care if regular people believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, sure it's silly given what we now know about the orgin of the species, but it's harmless IMO. it's the public figures like Kent Hovind and megachurch bosses like John Hagee who hold most of the blame for suppressing any consideration of alternative views (such as a non-literal approach to interpreting Genesis, and a theistic one toward evolution.) they remain mired in their dogma for petty political and partisan reasons rather than a genuine desire to know the truth.

I just think it's important to note that everyone in the West believed in a literal 6-day Creation just a few centuries back but that didn't get in the way of them making lots of important discoveries and founding our civilization.

Even to Christians John Hagee is radical.

[phuckphace]

Even to Christians John Hagee is radical.

can you clarify a bit more? I wouldn't say he's "radical", his views are fairly mainstream as far as American Evangelicals are concerned.

[Lovelife090994]

can you clarify a bit more? I wouldn't say he's "radical", his views are fairly mainstream as far as American Evangelicals are concerned.

My family is considered Evangelistic yet nothing like him. Most American Christians aren't Evangelicals and even those who are, are no Haggae. He is more like the politicians. Blessed, annointed, maybe, but very radical.

[BuryYourFlame]

Have peer reviewed scientific studies shown validity to the creation account given in the bible? No.
Have peer reviewed scientific studies shown validity to the theory of evolution and the big bang? Yes.
One uses scientific studies, the other doesn't, it's not hard to see which belongs in a science classroom.
That being said, learning new things is pretty much always good and there is a place for learning about the benefits/teachings and flaws of the major religions. That place, however, is not a science classroom.

[saea97]

I choose to ignore evolution when it is presented to me.

This seems like a rational thing to do. Wouldn't want any of that 'truth' nonsense in your brain.

[Living For Love]

Creationism should only be mandatorily taught in countries where the dominant religion is Christianity.

[Miserabilia]

To me schools should teach both. They teach us of Islam and Buddhism, why not Christianity? The history is lengthy enought o be a course. Teach both sides, students are smart enough to know the difference and stand by their own ideas.

What?
What do you mean "they teach us of Islam and Buddhism"?
They don't teach the things said within those religions as fact, and neither should be done with christian creationism.

It's very simple;
creationism is contradictory to what we have found about the age of the earth and the universe. Creationists can try to destroy scientifical facts about the age (Like carbon dating isn't always accurate, etc.), but the thing is they have no proof for a young earth.

I find it ridiculous that there are even people that want creationism to be taught in school.

Creationism should only be mandatorily taught in countries where the dominant religion is Christianity.

You kidding? You want schools in the USA to mandatorily teach creationism?
That's crazy, they don't do it now; why should they?
Their parents and their church can teach them about it all they want,
but if it's mandatory in schools than they are using state to force religion on children,
which is against the seperation of church and state.

Excuse me? What do mean religions tend to do that? And what? I think all faith's creation stories should be taught. In the case of America, Christian Creationism was taught given how a majority of families were Christian and agreed with it. Nowadays things are different. We still have many Christians but like all the other religious groups we are often too quiet which is why no one's Creationism is taught.

You think all faiths creation stories should be taught by public schools?
I hope you mean inform children about them, (which schools already do.)
If we start teaching them all these stories as fact than they will be contradictory.

We still have many Christians but like all the other religious groups we are often too quiet which is why no one's Creationism is taught.
Most people in america are in fact christian.
And alot of creationists are still out there, and campaigning for creationism to be taught at school.

Anyway, I think alot of you are confused here; the question was if it should be taught in school;
as in "Kids, this is what happened, god created the earth in seven days".
What should be done (And is already being done in most schools, so no problem there),
is inform.
Like,
"Kids, creationist christians beleive what it says in Genesis, that god created the earth in seven days, " etc. etc.

[Living For Love]

You kidding? You want schools in the USA to mandatorily teach creationism?
That's crazy, they don't do it now; why should they?
Their parents and their church can teach them about it all they want,
but if it's mandatory in schools than they are using state to force religion on children,
which is against the seperation of church and state.
Probably it's not the best way to teach religion, I agree, but it is your obligation to know the fundamental things about the dominant religion in your country, even if you don't believe in them. And it's not about religion itself, it's about culture, general knowledge.

[Miserabilia]

Probably it's not the best way to teach religion, I agree, but it is your obligation to know the fundamental things about the dominant religion in your country, even if you don't believe in them. And it's not about religion itself, it's about culture, general knowledge.

Okay, but then you are talking about informing them about the religion, which is something schools already do in most cases.
The question was should it be taught.
I personaly hate the idea of it being taught; becase
1; It's contradictory to science (Which is also taught at schools)
2; Churches and parents and whatnot can teach those kids themselves, nobody should be forced upon a religion just because most people follow it.

[Bleid]

Science is for nerds. That being said, I feel like such a nerdy minority opinion, like truth, shouldn't be taught to the popular children.

[Living For Love]

Okay, but then you are talking about informing them about the religion, which is something schools already do in most cases.
Ok, then. That's already good.


The question was should it be taught.
I personaly hate the idea of it being taught; becase
1; It's contradictory to science (Which is also taught at schools
2; Churches and parents and whatnot can teach those kids themselves, nobody should be forced upon a religion just because most people follow it.
I'm not saying forcing a religion upon students. I'm saying teaching them about what religion is (Christianity, in this case): how it was created, how it developed, how it became so worldwide, important people associated to it, important happenings, main creeds and ideals. General culture and knowledge, just like knowing about evolution, and how the human thought evolved (from believing in Creationism as an absolute truth to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and all the mid theories between those).

Now, because school is not only about storing theory and information (sometimes needless information) in your brain, but also forming good citizens and good students with the ability of critically thinking for themselves, after you've been confronted with both theories (Evolutionism and Creationism), you're the one who's going to choose the one to believe in, the one who thinks was more likely to happen, something of that sort. And this applies with everything we learn in science, basically. We can't deny something before knowing what it is about, and confronting both perspectives.

[KieranRules]

Just teach people about what we know of the two theories, the supporting evidence and let the kids take it as they damn well like, instead of building their opinions for them! Theories should never be taught as true or false just let children make their own minds on what THEY believe. Fair enough?

[Miserabilia]

Ok, then. That's already good.


I'm not saying forcing a religion upon students. I'm saying teaching them about what religion is (Christianity, in this case): how it was created, how it developed, how it became so worldwide, important people associated to it, important happenings, main creeds and ideals. General culture and knowledge, just like knowing about evolution, and how the human thought evolved (from believing in Creationism as an absolute truth to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and all the mid theories between those).

Now, because school is not only about storing theory and information (sometimes needless information) in your brain, but also forming good citizens and good students with the ability of critically thinking for themselves, after you've been confronted with both theories (Evolutionism and Creationism), you're the one who's going to choose the one to believe in, the one who thinks was more likely to happen, something of that sort. And this applies with everything we learn in science, basically. We can't deny something before knowing what it is about, and confronting both perspectives.

This all falls under informing them about creationism rather than teaching them.
So in that manner, I aggree with you.

[Gamma Male]

Just teach people about what we know of the two theories, the supporting evidence and let the kids take it as they damn well like, instead of building their opinions for them! Theories should never be taught as true or false just let children make their own minds on what THEY believe. Fair enough?

Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Creationism is not.

Schools aren't obligated to provide religious alternatives to facts. Evolution should be taught as true, because it is true.

[Jean Poutine]

Creationism is a theory in the usual sense of the term : it's just a guess, and a pretty damn bad one at that.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation that has been well-substantiated and confirmed through experiments and observation.

Creationists like to throw around the "well evolution is just a theory" line around but all it means is that they don't even know the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory, a distinction we learn in Grade 8 in my country.

The French language causes less confusion in that regard in that "théorie", even in the colloquial sense, can refer to a body of work in a particular field, the meaning being closer to "doctrine", and when applied to science, all it means is "scientific doctrine", which sweeps away any creationist attempt at ridiculing evolution. Although "théorie" can still be used to refer to guesswork, we usually expect a "theory" backed by real evidence when we use the word. The confusion in English is thus one of language and not one of principles or scientific rigour, thus appropriately means nothing.

Although I don't think it is exactly right to present evolution as completely factual, it is evident that evolution is both a well-presented, coherent and logical theory and a fact in that it is supported by objective data. Creationism is neither.

Unless you are also OK with teaching homeopathy in medical school, homeopaths calling themselves "doctors" in the process, creationism should stay out of schools on that sole basis.

The separation of Church and State is another factor weighting in. Christian creationism is a creation myth perpetuated by a particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders and shepherds. If one really wanted to teach Judeo-Christian creationism in school as an "acceptable alternative theory", it would only be logical to also teach at least the major creation myths of the thousands of cultures on Earth. There's a tribe in, I believe, Western Africa that believes the world was created with ant shit. If one is to adopt Creationists' attempts at science, what makes that any less of a credible "theory" that should be taught in schools than Genesis?

You want to learn silly myths, fine, do it on your own time. There's something called Sunday school for exactly that reason. Christians keep making unreasonable demands of the population then scream they are "oppressed" when they are rightfully denied. They are the same ones usually waving their country's Constitution around without having read it, much less understood it, much like their precious Bible. Until Western governments start sticking Christians in concentration camps, bulldozing churches and burning Bibles, today's Christians do not know jack shit about being oppressed.

[sqishy]

Last option (was going to go for first) because this way people will see more angles to things and actually make up their own minds without being told everything about what to learn, think etc...

[KieranRules]

Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Creationism is not.

Schools aren't obligated to provide religious alternatives to facts. Evolution should be taught as true, because it is true.

It is known as 'Darwin's Theory Of Evolution'. Theory. You're simply saying children should not have a the opportunity to explore all or if not most routes of belief. I'm just saying that it is not a fact but yes, it does have a lot of evidence to support its existence but that does not mean you should totally shut away the creationist theory just because one theory has more evidence. What's wrong with not believing in evolution anyway, if that's what you're getting at? The freedom to believe what you want to does exist and it applies to children too.

I don't want to spam the thread so if you want we can take this debate to pm. :)

[Lovelife090994]

Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Creationism is not.

Schools aren't obligated to provide religious alternatives to facts. Evolution should be taught as true, because it is true.

Evolution is a theory. No one is born to be antitheist, like it or not, atheists are in the minority and need to learn to respect their religious majority. Teach students both sides and let them choose. Don't be so biased.

[Korashk]

Evolution is a theory.
Natural Selection via the process of Evolution is a theory. Evolution is a fact. Although it's not like the term "theory" exactly hurts the idea. Being a theory is as proven as something can get.

need to learn to respect their religious majority.
Why should I respect something that is objectively wrong? Which is what creationism is. Doesn't matter what your beliefs are. There's no need to teach children about things that don't happen.

Teach students both sides and let them choose. Don't be so biased.
Teaching creationism is so heavily biased towards Christianity it's ridiculous. The mere mention of it as a possibility in a class meant to teach children about how things actually happen is outlandish. Should we also present alternatives to gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth?

[Jean Poutine]

It is known as 'Darwin's Theory Of Evolution'. Theory.

You do not understand what the word "theory" means in the scientific jargon.

I quote myself :

Creationism is a theory in the usual sense of the term : it's just a guess [...]

Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation that has been well-substantiated and confirmed through experiments and observation.


Come back when you understand the distinction.

You're simply saying children should not have a the opportunity to explore all or if not most routes of belief.

Children are easily suggestible and are not able to make that kind of research or decision, especially when it is presented as factually correct.

They will research religion naturally when they are older, if they are interested in the topic. They can be sent to Sunday school. It is a point of curiosity for everyone, after all, and occupies some for their whole life. Fear not, my good proselytizing friend, everyone can eventually reach a conclusion by themselves. They need no overt teaching.

But no matter how anybody tries to dress it, Creationism and its incestuous sister intelligent design are not science, will never be science, and are purely religious matters. Public schools have no business teaching religion per the separation of Church and State. Why should I support with my tax dollars religions that I don't believe in? Do I give to an Alzheimer's charity if I don't believe in the cause?

I'm just saying that it is not a fact but yes, it does have a lot of evidence to support its existence but that does not mean you should totally shut away the creationist theory just because one theory has more evidence.

Again, evolution is not a theory in the sense you think the word "theory" has. Creationism is a theory in the sense you think it has. So is the random creation myth I made up just now that the Earth is a speck of ash of God's cigarette that he's smoking right now, and life arose when He blew His Holy Smoke at His Divine Ashtray. Should we teach my version in school?

What's wrong with not believing in evolution anyway, if that's what you're getting at?

You'd just be disregarding out of hand and for no reason the copious amount of proof, such as observation and scientific experiments in more scientific disciplines than I can count such as physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics and humanities such as archeology, anthropology, history and linguistics.

The freedom to believe what you want to does exist and it applies to children too.

Basically, you have every right to tie a headscarf around your eyes and walk around in traffic, but it doesn't mean it isn't a dumb thing to do.

Yeah, it does applies to children as human rights apply to every human being, so for some reason you want Creationism to be taught in public school as the "religious counterpoint" to evolution, disregarding, again, the literally tens of thousands other creation myths and "theories" in favour of the one you like the most. You are quite a hypocrite.

Further, freedom of religious belief is not qualitatively absolute. You have no right to impose your chosen religious beliefs on the public school system to the detriment and defavour of all of those of differing religions that would find that suddenly, not only is one religion actively promoted in school over any other, and especially over their own, but their own tax dollars are paying for classes contrary to their religious beliefs. What about their freedom of religion, no one cares?

Schools aren't made to instruct until the tertiary level. Until then, they educate. They are meant to mold a person, transform him into a productive citizen. Why do you think we all learned algebra in school when 95% of us will never use it again except for the odd rule of third? When a school system is meant to teach mostly values, it's extremely unjust to impose a particular system of values like any religion is, for everyone that does not share these values. So you are a double hypocrite.

Evolution is a theory. No one is born to be antitheist, like it or not, atheists are in the minority and need to learn to respect their religious majority. Teach students both sides and let them choose. Don't be so biased.

See, same theory bullcrap. Learn what theory means then come back.

We respect you. It is you who doesn't respect us by trying to limit our freedom of religion.

There is no "both sides". One is a credible theory, one isn't. One is objective and one is subjective. One is religion and one is science. One is an apple and one is an orange. One belongs in school and one belongs in Church. You can't equal them.

[tovaris]

creationism is plave stupid, noone sane believes that!
Nit to mention that if you accet that shit as real you have to accept that the fliing spagety monster theory is just as valid

[Capto]

There's a tribe in, I believe, Western Africa that believes the world was created with ant shit.

Just out of curiosity and personal interest, do you have any more information on this?

[Lovelife090994]

Natural Selection via the process of Evolution is a theory. Evolution is a fact. Although it's not like the term "theory" exactly hurts the idea. Being a theory is as proven as something can get.


Why should I respect something that is objectively wrong? Which is what creationism is. Doesn't matter what your beliefs are. There's no need to teach children about things that don't happen.


Teaching creationism is so heavily biased towards Christianity it's ridiculous. The mere mention of it as a possibility in a class meant to teach children about how things actually happen is outlandish. Should we also present alternatives to gravity, relativity, and a spherical earth?

Christianity has creationist views and many religions also have them. All should be taught or explored. Okay, you know I meant teach all sides. I said both to include the scientific community and the religious community. And, yes you do have to respect religious people too because first and foremost we are people with feelings and intellect as well. What you deem wrong, some deem right. Who are we to deny them?

[Camazotz]

Hello. I am Christian and believe God made the Heavens and the Earth but I am educated on evolution but take both as fact. Is that too much or too little for you?

You don't deny evolution as a fact, so that's okay, I can deal with that...

I would prefer that creationism be taught. But of course that won't happen. I choose to ignore evolution when it is presented to me.

^^ But I can't deal with this. You can believe in God and you can believe evolution, but only a moron would deny evolution but accept God.

To me schools should teach both. They teach us of Islam and Buddhism, why not Christianity? The history is lengthy enought o be a course. Teach both sides, students are smart enough to know the difference and stand by their own ideas.

No, you can't teach pseudoscience in a science classroom. There's no place for religion or creationism in the science classroom because it's not science.

Since there are valid arguments for both theories I think both should be taught then leave it up to the student to decide which they chose to believe.

There are not valid scientific arguments for creationism, therefore it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Question is, who's Creation theory? The Greek's? The Egyptian's? The Native American's? Seriously, if someone is dumb enough to think that children need to be taught about the "Christian" Creation theory, they're going to have to realize that on the same grounds every single other Creation theory must be given the same amount of teaching.

"But everyone knows those others aren't real, so why should we teach it", some may ask. It's when then I simply reply, "That's why putting in a Christian Creation theory into our public education system is ridiculous".

If you want to get closer to your god, go to church. But keep it away from the children, and let them decide for themselves what they want to believe in after the facts have been put in front of them.

^^ This.

All ideas of Creationism regardless of religion has it's arguments, cases, and believers. Teach them and teach students to quit judging Creationists and talking about them like dogs. Religious studies are great and depending on the religion can be the history of the region but Creation is the origin of life. Teach it all, be fair.

If students will believe whatever they want then regardless of the information they will stand by it. I was taught of the tenants of Islam and I am still Christian. Religious studies won't convert those who stand by something.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

Religious studies are absolutely fine. But we're not talking about a religion class, we're talking about science. God isn't scientific. There's no way to verify his existence through tests. Creationism cannot be proven like evolution or gravity. There's absolutely no evidence.

Creationism should only be mandatorily taught in countries where the dominant religion is Christianity.

Probably it's not the best way to teach religion, I agree, but it is your obligation to know the fundamental things about the dominant religion in your country, even if you don't believe in them. And it's not about religion itself, it's about culture, general knowledge.

Again, no. Creationism isn't science and should never be taught in a classroom, even in a private Christian school (although they're legally allowed to, it's ethically wrong). Creationism goes against everything science stands for, which is verifiable evidence. Religion should be taught as history, philosophy, etc. but absolutely never in any science classroom, anywhere.

Christianity has creationist views and many religions also have them. All should be taught or explored. Okay, you know I meant teach all sides. I said both to include the scientific community and the religious community. And, yes you do have to respect religious people too because first and foremost we are people with feelings and intellect as well. What you deem wrong, some deem right. Who are we to deny them?

That's the thing though; there's no subjectivity in science. There is and there isn't. There's nothing subjective about evolution: it exists and we've proven it, and we can prove it, and we will continue to be able to prove it. Creationism has not been proven, cannot be proven, and likely will never be proven because the arguments it presents has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. You have every right to believe in God, but no god belongs in science. You can't teach "all sides" because not only is that impractical (you'd have to teach EVERY creationist theory since the dawn of man), but it's morally wrong. You're brainwashing kids to abandon what science is all about, and you teach them it's okay to ignore evidence if it doesn't support your dogmatic beliefs. That's what's beautiful about science; it is the light and truth in this dark world filled with lies and unfounded beliefs. The scientific method is concrete and free from petty dogma.

[Jean Poutine]

Just out of curiosity and personal interest, do you have any more information on this?

It's a Richard Dawkins quote. I'd also be interested in knowing more. I actually sent an email. Will let you know if I get an answer.

[Lovelife090994]

You don't deny evolution as a fact, so that's okay, I can deal with that...



^^ But I can't deal with this. You can believe in God and you can believe evolution, but only a moron would deny evolution but accept God.



No, you can't teach pseudoscience in a science classroom. There's no place for religion or creationism in the science classroom because it's not science.



There are not valid scientific arguments for creationism, therefore it doesn't belong in a science classroom.



^^ This.



Religious studies are absolutely fine. But we're not talking about a religion class, we're talking about science. God isn't scientific. There's no way to verify his existence through tests. Creationism cannot be proven like evolution or gravity. There's absolutely no evidence.





Again, no. Creationism isn't science and should never be taught in a classroom, even in a private Christian school (although they're legally allowed to, it's ethically wrong). Creationism goes against everything science stands for, which is verifiable evidence. Religion should be taught as history, philosophy, etc. but absolutely never in any science classroom, anywhere.



That's the thing though; there's no subjectivity in science. There is and there isn't. There's nothing subjective about evolution: it exists and we've proven it, and we can prove it, and we will continue to be able to prove it. Creationism has not been proven, cannot be proven, and likely will never be proven because the arguments it presents has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. You have every right to believe in God, but no god belongs in science. You can't teach "all sides" because not only is that impractical (you'd have to teach EVERY creationist theory since the dawn of man), but it's morally wrong. You're brainwashing kids to abandon what science is all about, and you teach them it's okay to ignore evidence if it doesn't support your dogmatic beliefs. That's what's beautiful about
science; it is the light and truth in this dark world filled with lies and unfounded beliefs. The scientific method is concrete and free from petty dogma.


I take issue to that. Science is truth and the light? Uh, no, that's Jesus. So what he takes God first? So do I.

[Camazotz]

I take issue to that. Science is truth and the light? Uh, no, that's Jesus. So what he takes God first? So do I.

Then we can agree to disagree on that one.

[Lovelife090994]

Then we can agree to disagree on that one.

Agreed.

[Aajj333]

If they taught theories without any evidence like creationism then i would say I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything then they would have to teach it too.

[Gamma Male]

If they taught theories without any evidence like creationism then i would say I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything then they would have to teach it too.

HOW DAAARRE YOU MOCK THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!!

You sir, are going to hell.

[Sir Suomi]

Excuse me? What do mean religions tend to do that? And what? I think all faith's creation stories should be taught. In the case of America, Christian Creationism was taught given how a majority of families were Christian and agreed with it. Nowadays things are different. We still have many Christians but like all the other religious groups we are often too quiet which is why no one's Creationism is taught.

It's almost laughable at how you're so blinded by your faith you don't see the faults in it, and even when you see these faults, you choose to ignore them. My point here is how pastors can go about ranting about the "evils" of things such as Homosexual marriage, but when it comes to something like the outlawing of eating animals such as camels, rabbits, etc (Leviticus 11:4), eating oysters or clams (Leviticus 11:10), or even wearing anything made of more than one fabrics (Leviticus 19:19). Seriously, Christians are honestly the biggest cherry-pickers I have ever seen.

And there is no way in hell you would cover every religious Creation "theory", even if you studied it throughout your whole high school career. So that's a big "NO" to that. If you really want to be taught such ridiculous things such as the Creation "theory", go to a private school.

[Lovelife090994]

It's almost laughable at how you're so blinded by your faith you don't see the faults in it, and even when you see these faults, you choose to ignore them. My point here is how pastors can't go about ranting about the "evils" of things such as Homosexual marriage, but when it comes to something like the outlawing of eating animals such as camels, rabbits, etc (Leviticus 11:4), eating oysters or clams (Leviticus 11:10), or even wearing anything made of more than one fabrics (Leviticus 19:19). Seriously, Christians are honestly the biggest cherry-pickers I have ever seen.

And there is no way in hell you would cover every religious Creation "theory", even if you studied it throughout your whole high school career. So that's a big "NO" to that. If you really want to be taught such ridiculous things such as the Creation "theory", go to a private school.

Enough with the anti-Christian remarks. You and I both know that faith is not blind. Plus, how dare you! Don't you dare insult my beliefs. Yes the Bible has many idiosyncracies but notice their roots, with Israel and Judaism which I have no part or ownership of. And even in the Codex Vaticanus one of the oldest Bibles in existence it shows how homosexuality is a sin. You cannot change God's law.

[Sir Suomi]

Enough with the anti-Christian remarks. You and I both know that faith is not blind. Plus, how dare you! Don't you dare insult my beliefs. Yes the Bible has many idiosyncracies but notice their roots, with Israel and Judaism which I have no part or ownership of. And even in the Codex Vaticanus one of the oldest Bibles in existence it shows how homosexuality is a sin. You cannot change God's law.

I'm not insulting really. I'm just pointing out just a few of the many of your faith's flaws, and you're upset simply because you're faith isn't "perfect" like you'd imagine it to be. That's strike one.

And yes, faith is 100% blind. The definition of faith is a belief that is not based on proof. I believe that's strike two.

Also, how can you say that Judaism has no part in your faith? The Torah is you're flippin' Old Testament! That's strike three.

And finally, I don't give two shits about your religion. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but when your persecute others just because they love someone who happens to be of the same sex, you better believe I won't respect your religion. So remember that next time, before you try and stand all mighty in front of me saying that you can't change "God's Law".

That's game folks.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm not insulting really. I'm just pointing out just a few of the many of your faith's flaws, and you're upset simply because you're faith isn't "perfect" like you'd imagine it to be. That's strike one.

And yes, faith is 100% blind. The definition of faith is a belief that is not based on proof. I believe that's strike two.

Also, how can you say that Judaism has no part in your faith? The Torah is you're flippin' Old Testament! That's strike three.

And finally, I don't give two shits about your religion. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but when your persecute others just because they love someone who happens to be of the same sex, you better believe I won't respect your religion. So remember that next time, before you try and stand all mighty in front of me saying that you can't change "God's Law".

That's game folks.

Okay, dial down three times. One, watch your mouth! Two, watch your tone! Three don't put words in my mouth or yell at me! I walk by faith and use my wisdom, something God wants all of us to do. Yes Judaism is a big part of Christianity but the laws of Leviticus are sourced to the Jews. The idea of avoiding shellfish was due to A) Israelites had little to no access to shellfish, B) The Jews eat nothing unclean including shellfish, C) the body is a temple and you do not corrupt the Temple of God.

God has the last laugh and deals judgement. Not every Christian is against gays in fact few are. We just don't approve of the lifestyle. Now me? I am bisexual but I intend to let God judge me himself on that.

And did I say Creationism is a bad thing? No, I say we should teach both views. If atheists can have their ideals taught when we are not all atheist then why deny the views of the Christians? Is it because Christians don't fight back? Is it because we just turn the other cheek so you mock us? What, what is it what do you want?

[Sir Suomi]

Okay, dial down three times. One, watch your mouth! Two, watch your tone! Three don't put words in my mouth or yell at me! I walk by faith and use my wisdom, something God wants all of us to do. Yes Judaism is a big part of Christianity but the laws of Leviticus are sourced to the Jews. The idea of avoiding shellfish was due to A) Israelites had little to no access to shellfish, B) The Jews eat nothing unclean including shellfish, C) the body is a temple and you do not corrupt the Temple of God.

God has the last laugh and deals judgement. Not every Christian is against gays in fact few are. We just don't approve of the lifestyle. Now me? I am bisexual but I intend to let God judge me himself on that.

And did I say Creationism is a bad thing? No, I say we should teach both views. If atheists can have their ideals taught when we are not all atheist then why deny the views of the Christians? Is it because Christians don't fight back? Is it because we just turn the other cheek so you mock us? What, what is it what do you want?

Oh, I'm sorry. It's just that because of your "loving" faith, I've been practically disowned by half my family because I said I simply didn't believe in their god anymore. Not to mention the countless cases of people that have been mocked, beaten, disowned, and harassed just because some people choose to not put their lives in the hand of some imaginary man in the sky.

Oh, and it goes beyond Leviticus. Your bible also states that anyone with injured or severed genitalia cannot enter a church (Deuteronomy 23:1), that a wife should have her hand cut off if she chooses to help her husband out in a fight (Deuteronomy 25:11-12), and that women should not speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). There's endless more ridiculous passages that Christians choose to ignore, yet at the same time cite the bible as evidence for their supposed "theory" of Creation, and to use as a justification to abuse others.

And Santa Clause will get the last laugh when on Christmas Day everyone who no longer believes in him gets coal in their stockings. Seriously, don't try threatening me with your imaginary hell.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are not "atheist ideals", instead they are facts, theories with strong evidence supporting them, and valid hypotheses, unlike your "Creation theory", which has no evidence to stand upon withholding your bible, which supports Creation as much as DC comics prove that Batman truly exists.

You Christians always act like you're the victims, when in all reality, you were the bullies ever since you rose to become the majority within the world, and finally everyone else has had it with your shit, and is finally standing up for themselves. So don't even try to use the pity card on me, because it isn't going to get you anywhere.

[Lovelife090994]

Oh, I'm sorry. It's just that because of your "loving" faith, I've been practically disowned by half my family because I said I simply didn't believe in their god anymore. Not to mention the countless cases of people that have been mocked, beaten, disowned, and harassed just because some people choose to not put their lives in the hand of some imaginary man in the sky.

Oh, and it goes beyond Leviticus. Your bible also states that anyone with injured or severed genitalia cannot enter a church (Deuteronomy 23:1), that a wife should have her hand cut off if she chooses to help her husband out in a fight (Deuteronomy 25:11-12), and that women should not speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). There's endless more ridiculous passages that Christians choose to ignore, yet at the same time cite the bible as evidence for their supposed "theory" of Creation, and to use as a justification to abuse others.

And Santa Clause will get the last laugh when on Christmas Day everyone who no longer believes in him gets coal in their stockings. Seriously, don't try threatening me with your imaginary hell.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are not "atheist ideals", instead they are facts, theories with strong evidence supporting them, and valid hypotheses, unlike your "Creation theory", which has no evidence to stand upon withholding your bible, which supports Creation as much as DC comics prove that Batman truly exists.

You Christians always act like you're the victims, when in all reality, you were the bullies ever since you rose to become the majority within the world, and finally everyone else has had it with your shit, and is finally standing up for themselves. So don't even try to use the pity card on me, because it isn't going to get you anywhere.

I'm not doing this. Now, you are not telling me everything. But ^mm mad at you. You have just insullted Judaism and Christianity and ignored the fact that Jews and Christians have been killed over the centuries even to this day. Christians are not all the same and I'd be mad at anyone calling my beliefs a lie as well, which most hold in their core.

Now, I'm so sorry you need support. I do too. Why else do you think I am on this site? If you want help, talk to me separately. I forgive you for your arrogance and ignorance. Maybe you don't know any better. I was raised to never touch another's religion or faith and to respect ALL people regardless. So, I forgive you.

I was asking ofr a fight. I stated that both Creationism and Evolution should be taught. Now if you disagree, good. But do not look for a fight. Take the fight to court, not me.

[phuckphace]

You Christians always act like you're the victims, when in all reality, you were the bullies ever since you rose to become the majority within the world, and finally everyone else has had it with your shit, and is finally standing up for themselves.

this seems more angry than true.

[Camazotz]

And did I say Creationism is a bad thing? No, I say we should teach both views. If atheists can have their ideals taught when we are not all atheist then why deny the views of the Christians?

Evolution isn't an "atheist ideal," it's science. Faith isn't scientific and dogmatic beliefs aren't scientific. Until Creationism has verifiable evidence, it should not be taught anywhere in a scientific setting. That's the beauty of science: there are no "views" on what the world is. Things can either be proven or not proven, and things that cannot be proven don't belong in the science classroom. There are no philosophical debates, no political rhetoric, and no agendas in science, other than to find the truth on why and how the universe works the way it does.

[Living For Love]

Again, no. Creationism isn't science and should never be taught in a classroom, even in a private Christian school (although they're legally allowed to, it's ethically wrong). Creationism goes against everything science stands for, which is verifiable evidence. Religion should be taught as history, philosophy, etc. but absolutely never in any science classroom, anywhere.
Wait, do they teach religion in science classes in private schools in the USA? Religion has nothing to do with science anyway. So, yes, I agree, like I said, religion should be taught in history or philosophy classes as general knowledge and culture.

[phuckphace]

Wait, do they teach religion in science classes in private schools in the USA?

religious schools do. I went to a private Christian school when I was younger and got the whole "dinosaurs roamed the Earth just 6,000 years ago and were probably on Noah's Ark too" thing. then again it was elementary school so the course was rather rudimentary and basic anyway, to say nothing of the creationism part.

[Camazotz]

Wait, do they teach religion in science classes in private schools in the USA? Religion has nothing to do with science anyway. So, yes, I agree, like I said, religion should be taught in history or philosophy classes as general knowledge and culture.

religious schools do. I went to a private Christian school when I was younger and got the whole "dinosaurs roamed the Earth just 6,000 years ago and were probably on Noah's Ark too" thing. then again it was elementary school so the course was rather rudimentary and basic anyway, to say nothing of the creationism part.

Private schools can teach whatever they want. They make the curriculum because they're not using tax dollars. They have basic (http://people.howstuffworks.com/private-schools4.htm) requirements, but ultimately they could teach only creationism and not evolution if they so choose.

[Hippie]

I believe in science and reputable evidence. ;)

[tovaris]

And did I say Creationism is a bad thing? No, I say we should teach both views. If atheists can have their ideals taught when we are not all atheist then why deny the views of the Christians? Is it because Christians don't fight back? Is it because we just turn the other cheek so you mock us? What, what is it what do you want?

evolution is based upon fackt! Creationism is just BS. Why not teach fliing spagety monster than? Why not teach my religion of the Transuniversal zimby church of the holy bel ringing? Why teach something made up, when it eint true?

And if you realy believe that teaching the truth is a blow to cristeanety, do as your faith sais, when someone strikes you on the left cheak, turn them the other for them to strike, isnt it so...

Religion has nothing to do with science anyway. So, yes, I agree, like I said, religion should be taught in history or philosophy classes as general knowledge and culture.

i second that

I would prefer that creationism be taught. But of course that won't happen. I choose to ignore evolution when it is presented to me.

why?! Why would you prefere to be taught a fery tale insted of a fackt backed theory?

[Sir Suomi]

this seems more angry than true.

I was referencing things such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the invasion of North America, which were all done under the name of their god. And even now, people are still persecuted, in some areas more than others, just because they refuse to conform to their beliefs. My life was a living hell when I told my family and later on my friends that I was an atheist, hell, I even lost my long-standing girlfriend, just because they thought it was blasphemous that I didn't believe in their god. My now ex-girlfriend told me that she thought I was "retarded" and " was going to hell", and that she didn't want any part of that. So excuse me if I become offended when some religious nut tries and forces his/her beliefs down my throat or our future generations of kids.

[Typhlosion]

Unless the school is private, I see no reason why a laic state should endorse a religion's belief of origin. Unless, of couse, it endorses ALL religions' belief of origin. Which is impossible.

No, no, no and no, noooo, no.

[Lovelife090994]

I was referencing things such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the invasion of North America, which were all done under the name of their god. And even now, people are still persecuted, in some areas more than others, just because they refuse to conform to their beliefs. My life was a living hell when I told my family and later on my friends that I was an atheist, hell, I even lost my long-standing girlfriend, just because they thought it was blasphemous that I didn't believe in their god. My now ex-girlfriend told me that she thought I was "retarded" and " was going to hell", and that she didn't want any part of that. So excuse me if I become offended when some religious nut tries and forces his/her beliefs down my throat or our future generations of kids.

People always look to the Inquisition or Crusades and blame all Christendom on these acts. Know that the Crusades had a major toll on all sides and that part of it was for land and for to take back the Promised Land which was taken at the time by Muslims. Invasion of North America? Just because the early Americans did bad things doesn't mean they did so because they were Christian. If you were a bad person before then you can still be a bad person as a Christian, difference is now you have a religious label. I had no involvement in the Inquisition nor any Christian alive today. The Crusades are only a small part of the countless wars in history fought over for land, food, and riches with no god involved. You can be atheist without being a rude person. All face persecution today. So, try and stop using your anger to justify your hatred.

[Gamma Male]

People always look to the Inquisition or Crusades and blame all Christendom on these acts. Know that the Crusades had a major toll on all sides and that part of it was for land and for to take back the Promised Land which was taken at the time by Muslims. Invasion of North America? Just because the early Americans did bad things doesn't mean they did so because they were Christian. If you were a bad person before then you can still be a bad person as a Christian, difference is now you have a religious label. I had no involvement in the Inquisition nor any Christian alive today. The Crusades are only a small part of the countless wars in history fought over for land, food, and riches with no god involved. You can be atheist without being a rude person. All face persecution today. So, try and stop using your anger to justify your hatred.

I think all he was trying to say is that religion has an overall negative impact on the world.

[Lovelife090994]

I think all he was trying to say is that religion has an overall negative impact on the world.

Thanks to Islam while Europe was dark they were flourishing in the ways of art and literature. At the dawn of the Renaissance the art and passion of Christendom inspired many men and woman to fill the world with a lot of literature and masterpieces still valued today! Religion can have a positive effect. It's radicalism that has to stop. Also, what worse is how when two do fight about religion the fight derails and changes to fighting about culture with both religions as the label. Religion has existed as a way to guide people and to explain the world. Some religions are a bit strange or repressive but even then it depends on the people following it.

Religion itself is ideas but when people get into the mix, then it gets beguiled. Take Christianity for instance, the basic three things: Love the Lord your God as your one and only God, treat all with love no matter how bad they treat you, and to help those who cannot help themselves. Of course due to man this is rarely seen. Even with Islam, Islam has many tenants of peace yet nowadays when you hear of Islam the word terrorism comes after when this has nothing to do with Islam. I blame those who use religion as a mask for violence or hatred.

[Sir Suomi]

So, try and stop using your anger to justify your hatred.

Oh, I certainly have motivation to hate religion. Trust me on that. But my reasoning for hating religion is due to the horrors that have been committed in the name of religions, and the horrors that are still being committed today. That is my justification for my argument.

I will add, however, that I know that there are "good" sides to religion. I have no quarrel when religious people or organizations assist those who are less fortunate, and I applaud those individuals.

My hatred does not extend to these individuals. It extends to those who use their religion as a rallying call to persecute, abuse, and kill others. So you're going to have to excuse me if I'm acting as though my hatred is towards you.

[Lovelife090994]

Oh, I certainly have motivation to hate religion. Trust me on that. But my reasoning for hating religion is due to the horrors that have been committed in the name of religions, and the horrors that are still being committed today. That is my justification for my argument.

I will add, however, that I know that there are "good" sides to religion. I have no quarrel when religious people or organizations assist those who are less fortunate, and I applaud those individuals.

My hatred does not extend to these individuals. It extends to those who use their religion as a rallying call to persecute, abuse, and kill others. So you're going to have to excuse me if I'm acting as though my hatred is towards you.

Hatred is never something that leads to anything good. Although vile people I strongly dislike and pray for. I feel like people forget the good and blame the bad on the whole group. So you have no quarrel with me? Good. Just allow me to be my I think it's called Skeptical Creationist Evolutionist Christian non religious self and I will be fine.

[Sir Suomi]

Hatred is never something that leads to anything good. Although vile people I strongly dislike and pray for. I feel like people forget the good and blame the bad on the whole group. So you have no quarrel with me? Good. Just allow me to be my I think it's called Skeptical Creationist Evolutionist Christian non religious self and I will be fine.

Agreed, as long as you respect the fact that I do not share your views.

[Lovelife090994]

Agreed, as long as you respect the fact that I do not share your views.

Agreed, granted your views aren't violent or inhuman.

[Gamma Male]

Agreed, granted your views aren't violent or inhuman.

Sorry to just jump in here, but could you define inhuman?

[Lovelife090994]

Sorry to just jump in here, but could you define inhuman?

Maybe the spelling was wrong? Inhumane or heartless views I can't stand.

[Miserabilia]

Maybe the spelling was wrong? Inhumane or heartless views I can't stand.

So basicly...
You are going to respect his different opinion,
unless it's something you can't stand?
That's.. kinda subjective.


Thanks to Islam while Europe was dark they were flourishing in the ways of art and literature. At the dawn of the Renaissance the art and passion of Christendom inspired many men and woman to fill the world with a lot of literature and masterpieces still valued today! Religion can have a positive effect. It's radicalism that has to stop. Also, what worse is how when two do fight about religion the fight derails and changes to fighting about culture with both religions as the label. Religion has existed as a way to guide people and to explain the world. Some religions are a bit strange or repressive but even then it depends on the people following it.

Religion itself is ideas but when people get into the mix, then it gets beguiled. Take Christianity for instance, the basic three things: Love the Lord your God as your one and only God, treat all with love no matter how bad they treat you, and to help those who cannot help themselves. Of course due to man this is rarely seen. Even with Islam, Islam has many tenants of peace yet nowadays when you hear of Islam the word terrorism comes after when this has nothing to do with Islam. I blame those who use religion as a mask for violence or hatred.

I think the main problem with religion is, that people will do these things anyway (The bad things), and their religion doesn't make them do it; however, certain personalities can use religion to do wrong things, and promote close minded ideas.
Again, this is not the religion iteslf, but the way people follow it.
And then, when they do these things, they justify it using their religion; and ofcourse we all have freedom of religion, so nobody dare say anything about it, because that's taking away their freedom right?
Well ofcourse I'm slightly exxagerating.

Point is, the concept of religion doesn't have to be bad; it's just that many religions have strict rules described in them too, which don't have to be followed but religious literalists still do.
It can be used to deprive others of rights, and in essence, to spread hate.

[Bleid]

Oh, I certainly have motivation to hate religion. Trust me on that. But my reasoning for hating religion is due to the horrors that have been committed in the name of religions, and the horrors that are still being committed today. That is my justification for my argument.

I will add, however, that I know that there are "good" sides to religion. I have no quarrel when religious people or organizations assist those who are less fortunate, and I applaud those individuals.

My hatred does not extend to these individuals. It extends to those who use their religion as a rallying call to persecute, abuse, and kill others. So you're going to have to excuse me if I'm acting as though my hatred is towards you.

I didn't hate 'The Dark Knight Rises' simply because there was a massacre at a theater in the name of the movies.

I don't hate America simply because there are occasional troops working under its name who murder women and children in the third world for the fun of it.

I don't hate Taco Bell on the grounds that their nasty bean-paste burrito gives me a stomach ache in the name of the franchise.

Point being - those who act in the name of an organization / group / religion / ideology are not equivalent to that organization / group / religion / ideology. The hatred for the organization / group / religion / ideology is misdirected. It should be on the individual people committing these acts, not to the groups to which they belong.

[whoisme]

So, should creationism be taught as an alternative to evolution? Should evolution not even be taught at all? What do you think?

I'll start off the thread by clearing something up.
Evolution is a scientific fact. It happened, and it is still happening. The statement "Evolution isn't real!" isn't an opinion, it's simply false.


The scientific evolution:

'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.


This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.


Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')


In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.


"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.


This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Fallacy of equivocation:


Atheists & Darwinists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

[Lovelife090994]

So basicly...
You are going to respect his different opinion,
unless it's something you can't stand?
That's.. kinda subjective.




I think the main problem with religion is, that people will do these things anyway (The bad things), and their religion doesn't make them do it; however, certain personalities can use religion to do wrong things, and promote close minded ideas.
Again, this is not the religion iteslf, but the way people follow it.
And then, when they do these things, they justify it using their religion; and ofcourse we all have freedom of religion, so nobody dare say anything about it, because that's taking away their freedom right?
Well ofcourse I'm slightly exxagerating.

Point is, the concept of religion doesn't have to be bad; it's just that many religions have strict rules described in them too, which don't have to be followed but religious literalists still do.
It can be used to deprive others of rights, and in essence, to spread hate.

No, basically I hate inhumane and literally heartless ideas. And I think some will find a way to use anything for hate nowadays.

[Miserabilia]

No, basically I hate inhumane and literally heartless ideas. And I think some will find a way to use anything for hate nowadays.

Not just nowadays... Always, sadly ):

The scientific evolution:

'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.


This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.


Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')


In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.


"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.


This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Fallacy of equivocation:


Atheists & Darwinists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.

I am truly sorry for your lack of knowledge on this subject.
Listen, I am no expert but it is a field I am going to study.

I don't think I have the time to even point out the flaws and plain lies in that story,
but just the basics;

A mutation is not nescacairly a disorder. It's a mutation.
Are blue eyes a disorder?
No. Does a mutation have to be something negative like you said?
No not at all.

I have to ask..
Are you aware that even if they would be harmful,
that would mean those organisms would reproduce less and the ones without that mutation survive?


This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
It is proven, and testable.
evolution on bacterial levels has simply been proven by observing a species evolving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

[Gigablue]

Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism.

Really. I'd like to see proof that not only is evolution wrong, but that everyone who espouses it is aware that it is wrong. That seems like a massive claim with absolutely no evidence.

The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders.

Mutations are not the same thing as genetic disorders. Some mutations cause genetic disorders, many don't. The two are not the same.

Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.

Most mutations are silent, that is to say, neither deleterious nor beneficial. Of the some that produce phenotypic change, most are deleterious. All this proves is that mutations alone are no try cause of evolution, which is true.

Mutations with selection produce a very different result. The deleterious mutations are selected against, while the beneficial ones are selected for. Thus, the beneficial mutations become more prevalent, and the deleterious ones die out. Through this process, the gene frequency of the population changes.

the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information.

It is easy for there to be a net gain in genetic information. It's called gene duplication, and it happens all the time. Once a gene gets duplicated, due to a replication error, the duplicate is free to evolve in novel direction. If one of those directions leads to something beneficial, it will be selected for and genetic information will increase.

This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

It is testable. We have seen mutations produce beneficial changes. Since you don't accept the overwhelming genetic and paleontological evidence, we have even seen it happen the the lab. In one experiment E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate (the inability to metabolize citrate is one of its defining characteristics) over the course of only a few years. This adaptation is clearly beneficial, since it leads to greater availability of food, and resulted from mutations. We know this because we tracked the specific mutations and their effects.

Atheists & Darwinists

Not everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. Furthermore, the term Darwinist should not be used. It makes it sound as though it's all about Darwin, when in reality, it's about the evidence.

[tovaris]

The scientific evolution:

'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.


This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.


Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')


In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.


"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.


This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Fallacy of equivocation:


Atheists & Darwinists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

you dorealize you share DNA with say a chimp, a fly, and a dendylian... Nt to metion that the gens for say eies are the extremely similar to those of flies and rabits....
You do inow that evolution is not a proces that happens in a single generation right?
And not to mention that evolution frew random mutatiins and natural selection has been proven...
Say you take colorful fish from your fish tank put them in a pond in the wild whew thy cannot mox or interact with other fish, after a few years all their decendents will be dul colored and probably a wery similar colour of the pind...

A few more words:
The Flying Spagety Monste

[Bleid]

The scientific evolution:

'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.


This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.


Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')


In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.


"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:

'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.


This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Fallacy of equivocation:


Atheists & Darwinists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

Can you clearly indicate where the 'equivocation' is present in what you just said here? I'd like it as:

The (word or phrase) in its first definition: _____
The (word or phrase) in its second definition at a later point in the argument: _____

Just to make it clear.