Creationism in Science is Child Abuse

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Just thought I'd get that good 'ol evolution vs creation hooplah started again :D

Anyways, evolution (as far as Canada is concerned) is not a taboo subject kept out of the classroom. We don't shy away from scientific truths that may or may not conflict with certain belief systems. The United States is in much worse shape I'm afraid. In the Bible Belt especially, evolution is a "scary" topic, one that many groups are trying to pull out of science class. I quite frankly resent the idea that this sort of thing could happen in ANY developed country. Creationism as a substitiute is unfair to children. It teaches them a pseudoscientific explanation that is supported with no evidence whatsoever. If put in science class, it undermines the very basis for biology. When we start to "pick and choose" what can be taught because it doesn't make us "uncomfortable" we have a serious problem here. The removal of evolution from public school curriculum is a travesty.

But enough of me. I want to here any and all American's takes on this (especially if you disagree). Everything I said (as well as what you may say) is open for rebuttal. If you have a point to prove, be PREPARED to prove it!

Most of all I would like any posters to describe what attention is given to evolution in YOUR school.

Creationism has its place in philosophy or theology class. It has no basis in science and therefore should never be taught as scientific fact.

I've had my say; speak YOURS.

[Underground_Network]

Evolution is what we are taught in my school, and even the most religious kids in my school believe in evolution over creationism. I think some believe in a mix of the two, but no one that I know of believes solely in creationism. As for my opinion, I think evolution should be taught in the classroom, and that creationism should be left out of school. Religion and school are two different things, and they should remain separate. Shoving creationism down a kid's throat in science class is like forcing him/her to recite a religious hymn [especially in the case of forcing say, a Jewish kid to recite a Christian hymn].

[The Batman]

Really though you can't just tell one theory without explaining another. I wish that my school did tell us a bit about Creationism and by you guys saying that teaching it is like forcing a child something is kinda hypocritical, because teaching a student who doesn't believe in evolution is the same way.

[foof1]

Evolution is taught at my school and I don't know of anyone who does not believe it.

[theOperaGhost]

There was only one person in my school that didn't accept evolution. Creationism was never taught, but evolution was, kind of. I don't mind if creationism would be taught, however, why would it be taught in a science class? Once again, both are just theories, but evolution does have a ton more evidence than creationism. That still doesn't make evolution true though.

BTW, good post, Thomas.

[Maverick]

Child abuse?

I don't think creationism was touched that much (if any) in biology. Biology focused primarily on evolution. My world history class talked about creationism/intelligent design in the beginning of the course.

I do think its important to teach both theories. However before students even start school they're going to have some kind of influence religion or not by parents. So I don't think its a big deal.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Once again, both are just theories, but evolution does have a ton more evidence than creationism. That still doesn't make evolution true though.

BTW, good post, Thomas.

By postulating Evolution as "just a theory" it doesn't give it proper credit. Wording it like that makes a theory sound like a wild guess. When in fact theories are MORE important than the evidence supporting them! Why is that? Because this theory gathers all the evidence together and EXPLAINS what the evidence shows us! This is much different than a wild guess, wholly unsupported by any kind of empirical evidence (which creationism happens to be).

There is absolutely NO dispute within the scientific community with the validity of evolution. If you want then you may as well call it the FACT of evolution. It holds the same reality as the THEORY of gravity. In fact, there is MORE evidence that supports evolution than there is to support gravity!

This is not the case of teaching two rival theories of equal merit. Creationism has no scientific merit whatsoever, and to be taught it must be located in a theology class.

[Underground_Network]

Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is a belief. There is a difference between a belief and a theory, a major difference. Beliefs aren't necessarily provable, nor do they always warrant proof. Someone may believe something regardless of the evidence for or against it. A theory on the other hand is 'supported' by multiple hypotheses and is accepted as the most likely explanation for unexplainable phenomena, though it is not acknowledged as truth. Thus Creationism is a belief, not a theory, and thus it does not belong in science class. Where else they could put it is beyond me. Maybe it could get a slight mentioning in a biology class, just so that students are aware that Evolution is quite simply a theory, and that there are other possibilities out there, but it still seems a bit ridiculous to me that religion, in any way, should oriented into the school curriculum.

[The Batman]

Evolution is just a theory. I believe that if a majority of the population does believe in something than it should be at least discussed next to the rival theory that way people can decide for themselves what to believe in. It isn't right to force someone to believe in one theory when there is another option. The scopes monkey trial was fought so that evolution could be taught in school but now that it is we are all but forgetting about the original idea.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Child abuse?

I don't think creationism was touched that much (if any) in biology. Biology focused primarily on evolution. My world history class talked about creationism/intelligent design in the beginning of the course.

I do think its important to teach both theories. However before students even start school they're going to have some kind of influence religion or not by parents. So I don't think its a big deal.

Yes; I pull no punches when I literally mean child abuse; at least in the intellectual sense. "Creationist Museums" and homeschooled programs are depriving children of common knowledge in favour of their own religious ideals. By doing this we put a child at a major intellectual disadvantage to his/her peers, who were taught actual SCIENCE in their classroom. This at the very worst could keep many budding scientists from discovering their true potential (who knows, one could have possibly found the cure for cancer), and keep them in a dark age where intelligence is drowned out by religious fundamentalism.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Evolution is just a theory. I believe that if a majority of the population does believe in something than it should be at least discussed next to the rival theory that way people can decide for themselves what to believe in. It isn't right to force someone to believe in one theory when there is another option. The scopes monkey trial was fought so that evolution could be taught in school but now that it is we are all but forgetting about the original idea.

I apologize for the double post, but it is clearly warranted here. I already explained the stance of calling evolution "just a theory" is disingenuous (see my posts above). Like others have been quick to respond, Creationism is by no means a "rival theory", especially since it is not a theory at all; as Underground Network has said: it is a belief, one that is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

A majority opinion has NO bearing on the truth. A MAJORITY of people once believed that the world was flat... and did that majority in ANY way make it true? Of course not! Truth is not based on OPINION. It is based on fact. By your reasoning we should teach "magic" right alongside physics... and let the KIDS decide what they want to believe!

Science is not based in belief; it is based on fact and evidence, neither of which can even be remotely addressed in Creationist dogma.

[Maverick]

Yes; I pull no punches when I literally mean child abuse; at least in the intellectual sense. "Creationist Museums" and homeschooled programs are depriving children of common knowledge in favour of their own religious ideals. By doing this we put a child at a major intellectual disadvantage to his/her peers, who were taught actual SCIENCE in their classroom. This at the very worst could keep many budding scientists from discovering their true potential (who knows, one could have possibly found the cure for cancer), and keep them in a dark age where intelligence is drowned out by religious fundamentalism.You really do underestimate people though. Nothing is ever stopping them from learning on their own or in the future. They have a right to believe a certain way just as you do and you forcing your beliefs on them is no different than they do.

All you can do is control the beliefs of you and your children. Because at the end of the day family is what influences people more than school.

[Atonement]

My biology teacher who teaches evolutionism is a creationist. I love it. We both agree onthe balance of both. God created all. God created evolution. If anyone really wants to get deeper with the balance, I have some verses and all that that I really dont want to look up but if you want, say so.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

All you can do is control the beliefs of you and your children. Because at the end of the way family is what influences people more than school.

And quite frankly I find that controlling your childrens beliefs is equally detestable. A child should not be labelled by a certain ideology (i.e. christian or muslim) at an age where the child simply cannot understand! Families of course influence more than school; in this case in a negative way. By their early childhood indoctrination, family has "set up" children to reject science on a belief that they don't even understand at such a young age. A child should never be labelled by any religion until they are of an age where they can come to a conclusion THEMSELVES (without their beliefs being "controlled").

[theOperaGhost]

Oh my God. I know what you're saying, but you are sounding just like a bible thumper to me, except you are preaching science. Neither religion or science are fact. Religion is a belief, science is just a bunch of theories, some of which are supported greatly by evidence. Just because scientific theories are supported by evidence doesn't make them fact. There could be a counter example to every scientific theory ever postulated, which would make the theory false.

[The Batman]

What happened to choice? Instead of shoving one down the throats of students why don't you just allow them to choose which one to follow? I mean wow we looked like monkeys so we must have came from them. Seriously dude I think that you shouldn't teach one without mentioning the other.

If you shouldn't teach a belief then why should you teach a theory? I mean both aren't proven 100% and by your logic they are still something thought up by somebody. You can't disprove Creationism just like you can't disprove Evolution. So what makes them so different that you can't teach both in school?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Oh my God. I know what you're saying, but you are sounding just like a bible thumper to me, except you are preaching science. Neither religion or science are fact. Religion is a belief, science is just a bunch of theories, some of which are supported greatly by evidence. Just because scientific theories are supported by evidence doesn't make them fact. There could be a counter example to every scientific theory ever postulated, which would make the theory false.

Did you not see my explanation of what is fact, theories EXPLAIN facts. If the theory was wrong, then the facts would PROVE it wrong. Every single branch of science, from chemistry to geology to biology all point to evolution by way of natural selection. Of course you could say "any theory could be countered". That is the beauty of science! If evolution was proven wrong, then we would immediately throw it out the window and start back at the drawing board. But for such a countering theory to arise... you need just as much evidence and facts required for us to take evolution as fact.

[The Batman]

And quite frankly I find that controlling your childrens beliefs is equally detestable. A child should not be labelled by a certain ideology (i.e. christian or muslim) at an age where the child simply cannot understand! Families of course influence more than school; in this case in a negative way. By their early childhood indoctrination, family has "set up" children to reject science on a belief that they don't even understand at such a young age. A child should never be labelled by any religion until they are of an age where they can come to a conclusion THEMSELVES (without their beliefs being "controlled").
Are you serious?

What your trying to do is control the classroom by only teaching Evolution, so what makes it justifiable to teach your kids only evolution when your saying that it isn't right to teach your kids only Creationism

[Maverick]

And quite frankly I find that controlling your childrens beliefs is equally detestable. A child should not be labelled by a certain ideology (i.e. christian or muslim) at an age where the child simply cannot understand! Families of course influence more than school; in this case in a negative way. By their early childhood indoctrination, family has "set up" children to reject science on a belief that they don't even understand at such a young age. A child should never be labelled by any religion until they are of an age where they can come to a conclusion THEMSELVES (without their beliefs being "controlled").
And if you want to teach them that way, that's fine. But there's no right or wrong way to teach your kids. Your beliefs are no more right than anyone elses. You're free to bring up your kids with how you think. You can't criticize others for doing it when you're doing the exact same thing just with what *you* think is the right way a child should be taught.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

What happened to choice? Instead of shoving one down the throats of students why don't you just allow them to choose which one to follow? I mean wow we looked like monkeys so we must have came from them. Seriously dude I think that you shouldn't teach one without mentioning the other.

If you shouldn't teach a belief then why should you teach a theory? I mean both aren't proven 100% and by your logic they are still something thought up by somebody. You can't disprove Creationism just like you can't disprove Evolution. So what makes them so different that you can't teach both in school?

Choice is great. Democracy is founded in choice. Unfortunately science is not a democracy. It simply wouldn't WORK if it were run that way. Please don't patronize evolution by oversimplifying it to "we look like monkeys". That produces a false image of the theory's brilliance. Nothing can be absolutely proven 100%, yet evolution comes very close. Creationism on the other hand has 0%. I'm not kidding. No proof= no theory. I don't mean that it shouldn't be taught in school. It SHOULD be taught, just not as scientific FACT.

[Sapphire]

They should both be covered by the curriculum because to exclude either one is to increase peoples ignorance on that topic.
The evolution theory should be taught in science classes because it is a scientific theory. Creationism should be taught in religious studies as it is a religious belief and these classes are designed to inform people about the different religions and their beliefs.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

They should both be covered by the curriculum because to exclude either one is to increase peoples ignorance on that topic.
The evolution theory should be taught in science classes because it is a scientific theory. Creationism should be taught in religious studies as it is a religious belief and these classes are designed to inform people about the different religions and their beliefs.

With that I could not agree more! If any previous posters do in fact think its valid enough to be taught in SCIENCE class; then you better be prepared to reply with a good argument for it.

[The Batman]

I'm a believer of both, because I was taught both and I started looking at the similarities of the description of both. If you were to teach someone both and show them the similarities then you are giving them more evidence to back up their own beliefs rather it be evolution or creationism. Seriously though read the bible and you'll what I'm talking about.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I'm a believer of both, because I was taught both and I started looking at the similarities of the description of both. If you were to teach someone both and show them the similarities then you are giving them more evidence to back up their own beliefs rather it be evolution or creationism. Seriously though read the bible and you'll what I'm talking about.

You aren't seriously citing the BIBLE as a scientific source! I could as much cite the great old tales of Greek mythology as fact in that same train of logic. There is no explanation in the bible that holds any ground in science.

[The Batman]

So your just saying this without even knowing what the bible says about creationism? Omg how can you argue one side without studying the opposition.

[theOperaGhost]

I do believe I stated earlier that:
I don't mind if creationism would be taught, however, why would it be taught in a science class?

Oh, and Thomas, you are just full of good posts tonight!
I'm not disagreeing with ThatCanadianGuy on creationism not being taught in science classes, because, why the hell should it be, I just think it's bullshit that he would consider it child abuse.

[Sapphire]

You aren't seriously citing the BIBLE as a scientific source! I could as much cite the great old tales of Greek mythology as fact in that same train of logic. There is no explanation in the bible that holds any ground in science.

He wasn't. If you read his post again you will see that he believes in both creationism and evolution. He was saying that the two have similarities and that these can be seen in the Bible.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

So your just saying this without even knowing what the bible says about creationism? Omg how can you argue one side without studying the opposition.

Not at all. I know exactly what The Bible says in terms of creation. I've read it many times. I even used to be Christian... when I was 6 years old. I was very afraid of the devil and hell; so I was coerced into it. But I digress.

I HAVE studied the opposition. And... the opposition has no basis in REALITY. Which is kind of an important thing to have if you want something in science.

[Sapphire]

I HAVE studied the opposition. And... the opposition has no basis in REALITY. Which is kind of an important thing to have if you want something in science.

The term "reality" is too subjective as one persons reality can differ from another's. For the religious, God is a reality. For the athiesit, God is not a reality.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

The term "reality" is too subjective as one persons reality can differ from another's. For the religious, God is a reality. For the athiesit, God is not a reality.

I think we can all agree that pandering to a delusion and letting them accept it may be fine in society; but in the scientific community... reality is NOT arbitrary. God is not a physical reality in any sense; it simply can not be proven. The "real world" shows no evidence for god. Spirituality is the ONLY medium in which people's different beliefs in god exists.

[theOperaGhost]

You know, ThatCanadianGuy (I can't remember your real name, but I know I've seen it once before), there are religious people that could say the same thing about science. I'm not one of them, but maybe they think you are ignorant for believing science. You think people who believe in religion are ignorant, and it can just go both ways. Religious people can refuse to see the evidence in science, just like you can refuse to see any evidence in religion. I am NOT saying that there is any evidence in religious aspects, I'm just saying, you seem just as close minded as bible thumpers do to me.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

You know, ThatCanadianGuy (I can't remember your real name, but I know I've seen it once before), there are religious people that could say the same thing about science. I'm not one of them, but maybe they think you are ignorant for believing science. You think people who believe in religion are ignorant, and it can just go both ways. Religious people can refuse to see the evidence in science, just like you can refuse to see any evidence in religion. I am NOT saying that there is any evidence in religious aspects, I'm just saying, you seem just as close minded as bible thumpers do to me.

I'm not ignorant of religion. It's a huge part of people's lives today. I would welcome any evidence of the existence of God; it would certainly answer the whole "life after death" question. I will NEVER refuse evidence. That's the thing science THRIVES on. The only problem is, I haven't gotten ANY evidence from the religion side that hasn't been disproved time and time again. In a sense I WANT to believe it (sort of like I want to believe in Santa Claus :D). On the other hand; religion is completely close-minded. They reject evolution in the face of its vast wealth of evidence on the single principle that it conflicts with a BELIEF.

[CookieMonster]

I personally think both should be taught in school or none should be taught at all. Exposing a child to evolution and not to creationism is wrong, just like exposing them to creationism and not evolution is wrong. Every child need to be shown both sides of any belief and allow them to choose which one they want to believe. Forcing religion, or scientific theories on kids is horrible. And teaching a kid only one of the theories is doing just that.

Oh, by the way, I'm homeschooled. I actually use a Christian homeschool program called "Alpha Omega", and guess what, I've been taught both. Both my 10th grade history and science classes touched on both, saying both were theories and neither have been proven scientifically. So please don't go saying homeschooled kids are being deprived because not all homeschooled kids are being deprived.


Someone said that the bible has never been proven scientifically. If it's ever been proven to be wrong in it's entirety with scientific facts, please show me. Until then, don't discount it just because it's never been proven right.

[The Batman]

The only religious people who reject Evolution are Fanatics. I hate fanatics. That's the problem with the world today people aren't willing to hear both sides of the story because they have their mind set on one thing and they say fuck the opposition.

[theOperaGhost]

I just love this debate, because this is like one of the things I am open minded on. I believe both religion and science. I, in all honesty, know almost nothing about creationism. My belief is of both happening actually. I believe God created everything, then it all evolved and adapted differently. I am a believer of both though. Slightly more on the science side of things, but I do accept religion greatly. I'm really more into believing the Jesus stuff though, I don't really believe anything in the Old Testament.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Oh, by the way, I'm homeschooled. I actually use a Christian homeschool program called "Alpha Omega", and guess what, I've been taught both. Both my 10th grade history and science classes touched on both, saying both were theories and neither have been proven scientifically. So please don't go saying homeschooled kids are being deprived because not all homeschooled kids are being deprived.


Someone said that the bible has never been proven scientifically. If it's ever been proven to be wrong in it's entirety with scientific facts, please show me. Until then, don't discount it just because it's never been proven right.


This is the EXACT sort of thing I am very opposed to. Homeschooling CAN be very good; but in your case it seems to have been used to promote religious idealism. You said yourself that it "touches on both" but neither have been proven scientifically. Well that's half right. Creationism has never been proven. Evolution HAS been proven; in fact it was proven almost 150 years ago by Charles Darwin. In the last century our knowledge of it has just expaned upon his central theory more and more. Evolution is not a "belief" that needs to be taken with a grain of salt; its just as valid as gravity.

Your argument on the Bible is flawed. You essentially state that "if it hasn't been proven wrong... then it must be right". By that means... the Flying Spaghetti Monster has NEVER been disproven... so its an equally valid theory! See how that makes no sense? Its incredibly weak to say it hasn't been proven wrong and is therefore vaild somehow. In fact, pretty much anything the Bible has to say about things from the origin of man, the age of the earth, and the origin of species is completely and utterly wrong. The bible places the earth at 6,000 years old when it is KNOWN to be 4.45 billion!
If you want me to agree with the Bible on the basis of it "not being proven wrong".... then prove to me that it's right.

[The Batman]

The bible does not directly say how old the earth is, fanatics decided upon that. The bible said that animals were created first then man. Who's saying that man isn't an evolved form of an animal?

[theOperaGhost]

This is the EXACT sort of thing I am very opposed to. Homeschooling CAN be very good; but in your case it seems to have been used to promote religious idealism. You said yourself that it "touches on both" but neither have been proven scientifically. Well that's half right. Creationism has never been proven. Evolution HAS been proven; in fact it was proven almost 150 years ago by Charles Darwin. In the last century our knowledge of it has just expaned upon his central theory more and more. Evolution is not a "belief" that needs to be taken with a grain of salt; its just as valid as gravity.

Your argument on the Bible is flawed. You essentially state that "if it hasn't been proven wrong... then it must be right". By that means... the Flying Spaghetti Monster has NEVER been disproven... so its an equally valid theory! See how that makes no sense? Its incredibly weak to say it hasn't been proven wrong and is therefore vaild somehow. In fact, pretty much anything the Bible has to say about things from the origin of man, the age of the earth, and the origin of species is completely and utterly wrong. The bible places the earth at 6,000 years old when it is KNOWN to be 4.45 billion!
If you want me to agree with the Bible on the basis of it "not being proven wrong".... then prove to me that it's right.

You're saying the same thing about science. "If it hasn't been proven wrong, it must be right." Actually, the earth is only about 3.964 billion years old.

[Sapphire]

Evolution hasn't been proved beyond all doubt. All that has been proven so far is that animals, plants etc are capable of adapting to their environment. As such, it is still a theory.

I think we can all agree that pandering to a delusion and letting them accept it may be fine in society; but in the scientific community... reality is NOT arbitrary. God is not a physical reality in any sense; it simply can not be proven. The "real world" shows no evidence for god. Spirituality is the ONLY medium in which people's different beliefs in god exists.

This topic is about science and religion and so terms like "reality" which are prone to subjective differences (in whichever field) are not beneficial to the debate.

On the other hand; religion is completely close-minded. They reject evolution in the face of its vast wealth of evidence on the single principle that it conflicts with a BELIEF.

Why don't you read up on religion a bit more? Many Christians and Muslims (I'm not sure about Jews) acknowledge the religious scriptures on the creation of the Earth as being metaphorical and categorically do not take it literally.

[CookieMonster]

This is the EXACT sort of thing I am very opposed to. Homeschooling CAN be very good; but in your case it seems to have been used to promote religious idealism. You said yourself that it "touches on both" but neither have been proven scientifically. Well that's half right. Creationism has never been proven. Evolution HAS been proven; in fact it was proven almost 150 years ago by Charles Darwin. In the last century our knowledge of it has just expaned upon his central theory more and more. Evolution is not a "belief" that needs to be taken with a grain of salt; its just as valid as gravity.

Your argument on the Bible is flawed. You essentially state that "if it hasn't been proven wrong... then it must be right". By that means... the Flying Spaghetti Monster has NEVER been disproven... so its an equally valid theory! See how that makes no sense? Its incredibly weak to say it hasn't been proven wrong and is therefore vaild somehow. In fact, pretty much anything the Bible has to say about things from the origin of man, the age of the earth, and the origin of species is completely and utterly wrong. The bible places the earth at 6,000 years old when it is KNOWN to be 4.45 billion!
If you want me to agree with the Bible on the basis of it "not being proven wrong".... then prove to me that it's right.

Yes, he proved that micro-evolution is real. And it is, every species has adapted at one point in time to be able to live in their surrounding. The fact that humans have evolved all the way from a little microscopic thing, or macro-evolution, has never been proven solidly. Where are the fossils that show chimpanzees, or whatever the heck the species is today, turning into humans? It's just a theory, just like creationism.

All I was saying about the bible is it's never been proven to be wrong. You can easily find little bits from it that is believed to be wrong, like the age of the earth, from scientific studies and whatnot. BUT, that doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. Creation's has never been proven to be wrong. So don't discount it, or where the belief came from.

I'm not saying macro evolution is wrong, but I won't say it's right until it's been proven. Same goes for creationism. I don't know where we came from. Nobody has full proof of that.

[Atonement]

Here's my thought of evolutionism and creationism.

They are one in the same.

Who says they can't coexist? Why can't both be accepted as one single theory?

Here's why I believe so.

Right so, evolutionism, the theory that humans are evolved from apes right? Okay. I believe it. The only thing is, I believe that God started evolution and controlled it. I believe that Adam and Eve are the finished products of what God made.

So, supporting this, are scripture that I will now quote then explain.

(summary) of Genesis 1:1-2:3

First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!") - the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Second day: God creates a firmament - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear. "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees.

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made, and the stars.

Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens; He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures; He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness". They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

--------------------------------------
Right, so there is the normally accepted creation story.
--------------------------------------

This verse is really the defining verse in this theory.

2 Peter 3:8

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

--------------------------------------

This means, evolution could occur over THOUSANDS of years which for God, would be discribed as one day hence, on the sixth day.

------------------------------------

Concluding, this is really the theory of creatio ex materia and not creatio ex nihilo. Kinda of creatio ex deo.

[A.J.]

Christians need to stop this Creationism BS. Noone is trying to break your religions but Evolution has proven and think of it this way. Its the answer to how not why. Adam and Eve could not possibly have been real otherwise we'd all be a bunch of inbred freak shows

[Sapphire]

Christians need to stop this Creationism BS. Noone is trying to break your religions but Evolution has proven and think of it this way. Its the answer to how not why

Evolution hasn't been proven. All that has been proved is that animals and plants can adapt to their environment.

[Atonement]

Christians need to stop this Creationism BS. Noone is trying to break your religions but Evolution has proven and think of it this way. Its the answer to how not why. Adam and Eve could not possibly have been real otherwise we'd all be a bunch of inbred freak shows


That is why they are both theories.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Evolution hasn't been proven. All that has been proved is that animals and plants can adapt to their environment.

Evolution has been proven; it was proven 150 years ago. But for some reason people keep having to say "it still hasn't been proven" because it conflicts with religious beliefs. This relates to Vindication's comments; you really can't have one and the other coexisting peacefully. Putting God as the "architect that designed evolution" doesn't ANSWER anything, it just opens up even more unanswerable questions. Such as; who created God, and how did he make everything out of nothing.

The Age of the Earth IS 4.54 billion years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Humans did NOT evolve from apes or monkeys. By saying that you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on evolution. Humans and ALL other primates we see today originated from a common ancestor about 4 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution



Creationism is NOT a theory; it's a belief that is based on absolutely NO supporting facts or evidence, and such has no basis in science. Evolution IS a theory; one that describes the diversity of living things and how they have come to be here today. It is supported by a wealth of evidence from EVERY facet of the scientific community, and has never been refuted. For creationism to be called a "theory" (as vindication calls it above), then this "theory" needs just as much credibility as evolution. Unfortunately, no proof has ever been put forward. If you'd like to argue this (which I'm sure some will) bring it on; I'd love to see some real evidence.

When we show that nature itself is responsible for US... the need for God to explain anything disappears. If you want God to be given the credit for evoluton; you'll need to prove he even exists.

[CookieMonster]

Evolution has been proven


Yes, yes, Micro-evolution has been proven. But not macro-evolution.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Macroevolution IS microevolution! They are one in the same and you can't have one without the other; microevolution has occured for nearly 3 BILLION years. Macroevolution just describes major changes (like from fish to amphibians) that take place over MILLIONS of years of genetic mutations and natural selection.

Here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Just one of many articles; denying macroevolution because there's "apparently" no proof in your MIND doesn't change it's validity. There is more proof for macroevolution than there is proof to support the theory of GRAVITY.

This article explains macroevolution and its reality:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[Underground_Network]

I would say TCG has put up one of the strongest arguments I've ever seen and presented incredible evidence. Those denying his statements have given little to no evidence. This is really turning into a one-sided affair. I'm on TCG's side here, Creationism is not even theoretical, and with all the evidence he's presented I definitely see Evolution as way more than a theory, thus they fall completely opposite each other on the scale. One is pretty much fact, the other is nothing more than religious bs, which one would you teach in school?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I would say TCG has put up one of the strongest arguments I've ever seen and presented incredible evidence. Those denying his statements have given little to no evidence. This is really turning into a one-sided affair. I'm on TCG's side here, Creationism is not even theoretical, and with all the evidence he's presented I definitely see Evolution as way more than a theory, thus they fall completely opposite each other on the scale. One is pretty much fact, the other is nothing more than religious bs, which one would you teach in school?

That seems to be a continuing trend in Creationism's hopeless "debate". Frankly opening it for debate really gives it too much credit to begin with. Thanks for taking the evidence into consideration (lol I may sound like a rep whore but evolutionary biology has sort of become my life's work.... rep me if you like the arguments shown! lulz).

[Mzor203]

Evolution hasn't been proven. All that has been proved is that animals and plants can adapt to their environment.

I just want to point out something here. When she said, "All that has been proven is that animals and plants can adapt to their environment," that is what evolution is. And, I'm sorry if this offends, but how can you refute that adaption is happening, when you can go outside and watch it happening if you know where to look. So basically, evolution isn't a theory, it's just what we call that process of adaption.

Think about this. Say there are 10 beetles on a dark brown tree. 5 of them are dark brown colored, so they blend in, and 5 of them are light brown colored?

Now, I see no way to refute that the light brown beetles have more of a chance of being eaten, do you? And obviously the ones who survive are going to pass on genes.

Basically, evolution isn't a theory, It's the word for a process that is happening. I don't even like to link the the words "science" and "evolution", because at this point, it doesn't have much to do with science (In a way). Refuting that adaption doesn't happen is refuting logic. It's like saying, "Lions don't eat meat", when you can go and see it happening.

Now, to creationalism. I believe in it. But not in the way most do.

The only reason I'm not in any religious group, is because nobody has proved to me that I should. God hasn't given me any indicator that he exists, right? Now, if he gave me an indicator, I would be a Christian in a heartbeat. But, since God refuses to show me he exists, I'm not going to worship him, because it seems that he's being selfish by having everyone worship him without even providing real, physical proof that he exists.

Same with any other God with any other religion. If the Greek Gods came down to me and proved they existed, I'd hop on that bandwagon.

So what I believe is that, yes, there is something out there. The universe must have come from something. It can't just randomly appear out of nothing. Because if something caused it, what created that thing?

I think that if the God that is out there isn't providing real proof of his existence to us, he doesn't want to be worshiped. I think he just has enough joy in seeing his creations thrive, and he doesn't need any more than that. I'm not talking about the Christian God here, just whatever it is that's out there.

I think, instead of just believing, those religious people should instead go on a quest to find what is really out there, instead of just automatically believing. A book can't really tell us the secrets of the world or existence, neither can any prophets. The only way we can find out what is really out there is by searching it ourselves.

And that's what my religion is. I don't know if I should call it agnosticism, or give it an entirely new name. But I want to know what's out there, and I'm not going to believe anybody but my own senses.

In conclusion, I don't think "theories" should be taught in schools. I think in science classes evidence and data, and the tools for learning should be taught. I think we should be informed of the different theories, and told we need to use our wits and our skills to figure out what is actually true.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

That is the most sound response that delves into creationism I've seen. You and I (and quite similarly Richard Dawkins) do state that God may very well exist. HOWEVER, there is literally no chance that "God" is the "personal" Christian God. A supreme creator does not answer prayers or even care about our own existence. We are just a tiny speck hurling through space among trillions. Any God that may exist has obviously bigger and grander experiments afoot than pandering to our stupid requests.

[Sapphire]

There is categorically no real enduring evidence to provide support for this theory of evolution. The best we have is suggestive. That is why it is still only a theory.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

There is categorically no real enduring evidence to provide support for this theory of evolution. The best we have is suggestive. That is why it is still only a theory.

This is getting old very quickly. You've said the same thing several times over; you haven't given any proof to back up your statements, and you don't even take the EVIDENCE into consideration. If you actually did then you would understand that the evidence is self-supporting, "enduring", AND is observed even at the present!

So please, its disrespectful to ourselves as a race to call the defining theory of our existence "just a theory". I've given sources for my evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary to support your own claims... then GIVE them.

Why do you oppose it so much anyway? Just because it gives very real proof that God need not be required? Then it's STILL just a matter of a real scientific theory conflicting with factless BELIEF.

[The Batman]

Wow you bring up respect. I think it's disrespectful to call my beliefs a fairy tale(you might not have said it exactly but that's what I'm getting).

Here is a nifty site I found about evolution.
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Here's another site showing the many flaws in the Evolution theory.
They've even got 4 parts to it.
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.htmlHere is another site showing scientific flaws in Evolution.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Wow you bring up respect. I think it's disrespectful to call my beliefs a fairy tale(you might not have said it exactly but that's what I'm getting).

Here is a nifty site I found about evolution.
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Here's another site showing the many flaws in the Evolution theory.
They've even got 4 parts to it.
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.htmlHere is another site showing scientific flaws in Evolution.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm

Thank you for those sites! You're the first to present a case against evolution with support in this thread!

Those sites had me laughing so hard! They're great!

It doesn't take more than a second to notice the NAMES of all of these sites.... "realtruth" or "jesus is saviour" and "biblelife". Are you kidding me?! You can back up your opinion religiously... but not scientifically with unaccredated sites such as these. The first site, like all that you gave, is religiously biased and rejects evolution purely because it makes God doubtful. I read the main arguments on this page, and they are laughable at best (you might consider taking them down and providing "real" ones). Each of the arguments I saw were either strawmen, or very old creationist arguments that have been beaten into the ground time and again. It's getting old with these long-dead accusations. One of the other sights ONLY shows a religious point of view; it falls immediately out of the perview of science. The third site is a rehash of the first.

I guess I should have said in the beginning that sources should be ACCURATE. Need I say more? If anyone would take conflict with this read over his sites (with "bible" or "jesus" in their names) over the scientific articles I have presented that have GIVEN all the evidence needed to crush these pitiful creationist strawmen that have been presented. The first site I gave to readers, talkorigins.org, has detailed and scientifically accurate refutations of creationist dogma. ALONG with these refutations COMPLETE bibliographical references are given from real authors of REAL peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I rest my case.

[The Batman]

I have another one.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Your going to debunk sources simply because the come from religious sites? Maybe Christians are just the only people who are willing to uncover the flaws in evolution.

[Atonement]

Okay, this is totally why I like my theory. A simple mix of both theories. Science proves evolution. But does science prove how evolution started? No. But guess what does? God.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Okay, this is totally why I like my theory. A simple mix of both theories. Science proves evolution. But does science prove how evolution started? No. But guess what does? God.

God proves absolutely nothing. "How did life start? God did it!" as you can see it offers no insight, no explanation, and certainly doesn't further our knowledge. The "God Hypothesis" is an infinite regression, where an impossibly complex creator needs to address HOW the supreme being HIMSELF came into existence. Evolution itself doesn't even ADDRESS the beginnings of life on earth; that is a wholly separate theory althogether. Evolution only explains the diversity of life AFTER it has begun. For the origin of life, read up on Abiogenesis. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

And as for LightInDarkness, I don't debunk your sources simply because they are religious, although that IS a major strike against their validity from the start. I reject their accuracy based on the fact that no supportive evidence has been given besides strawman arguments, with no peer-reviewed work that has been recognized within the scientific community as fact. The scientific community is NOT biased against religious scientists, but for something to be published as scientific fact you need to back it up with evidence... something religious fundamentalist sites do a poor job of. At the bottom of all of my sources you can find quite a large list of references of ACTUAL published scientific journals that are accepted facts within the scientific community. Provide ME with the same kind of source in favour of creationism and I WILL take it seriously. Until then, I simply cannot.

I have provided REAL evidence and fact. Is it so hard to ask for some in return? It certainly is, especially when a pseudoscientific theory has no basis in reality.

[The Batman]

This is exactly what i believe in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
So why can't this be taught in school.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

This is exactly what i believe in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
So why can't this be taught in school.

If you want this taught in school; it will never be taught in science class as fact. Only in religion or theology class. The very DEFINITION of science itself is the study of natural explanations for the natural world. Science doesn't even address the supernatural (God). So by its own very definition, it can never be science.

Also you should read the content of the article; theistic evolution just slaps God's signature over a regular natural phenomenon simply to give "Him" some credibility. In the article it goes over several different Gods. Before you can even consider this "theory" your theologists can't even decide on WHICH God is the "one true God" as they say. God offers no explanation, no process, and no understanding of evolution beyond the simple "well god did it" explanation. Why do you think evolution has always caught so much flak from theists? Many because it gives grounds to intelligently debunk God once and for all as the creator of mankind. Man came into existence some 4 million years ago as a new and amazing species in the animal kingdom. God had no part in it, and why should that be so bad in the first place. A "lack" of God "doing it" doesn't make humanity any less amazing or important. The postulation of "God being the achitect" of humanity however gives us MORE credit than what is due; you put Humans above animals simply because we are more intelligent and have adapted speech as a great new way of communication.... which was all the work of "God". "God did it" sounds very scientifically valid indeed. :rolleyes:

[CookieMonster]

God proves absolutely nothing. "How did life start? God did it!" as you can see it offers no insight, no explanation, and certainly doesn't further our knowledge. The "God Hypothesis" is an infinite regression, where an impossibly complex creator needs to address HOW the supreme being HIMSELF came into existence.

Since the theory of creationism came from the bible, I assume you'd like the bible to also explain where God came from. Well guess what, it does.

It has stated a couple times through out it that God has always been there. Everyone has a hard time believe that, me included. Keep this in mind, God is not bound by time. Time does not exist with God.

Isaiah 57:15a "For the High and Exalted One who lives forever"

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.


I have provided REAL evidence and fact. Is it so hard to ask for some in return? It certainly is, especially when a pseudoscientific theory has no basis in reality.

The reason why you can't have any "real evidence" creationism is real is because creationism isn't something you can re-create. Therefore, you cannot do studies on it to prove it right or wrong. And you just stated that scientists don't even attempt to explain it, so why are you asking for something you KNOW isn't there?

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/whealy/notes_text/s.text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Scientific_critique


I find it hilarious that you said macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing. They are both evolution, but are very different.

Macroevolution is "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Microevolution is " evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

[ThatCanadianGuy]

What word is on the end of both of those..... evolution. Macroevolution is only separated by timescale; if you take a baby step every 2 seconds for 10 million years that's enough time for you to travel VERY far from your starting point.

Science is BASED on EVIDENCE. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this. We can actually re-create and even influence evolution in the lab. Even the theory of Abiogenesis is being tested to the degree that now humans can create the building blocks of life out of inorganic matter. It's only a matter of time before we can create life itself from non-living material.

The bible was written thousands of years ago by a very primitive desert culture as a simple way to explain everyday life in a way that could only be addressed by God at such an early time in history. I'd like to hope that with our increasing understanding of science we could realize the utter absurdity of Christianity. It's no more true than any other religion... which are also equally unprovable. When you think wholly unbiased and rationally no sane person would believe in such things on faith.


I'm sort of being forced to speak out against God in my own terms, but I think we should stick to the general point of this discussion. It's not wether God exists or not (that's for another place and time). The POINT of this thread is to show that while you can believe in the doctrine of creation on FAITH.... you can NEVER use it as a legitamate and teachable theory in SCIENCE class.

[theOperaGhost]

Are you calling me insane???

I think I have plenty of sanity. I have accepted science AND religion. Neither of them will ever be PROVEN as FACT, but I believe aspects of both. I DO NOT believe the creation story of the old testament in a literal sense. There are very few things that I do believe in the Bible in a literal sense. I don't think anyone should believe the bible like that. That's like saying the WWE is real wrestling (oh shit that's on now, I should watch it)...I do still have faith though.

But I still don't see why creationism would ever be taught in a science class...that just doesn't make any sense what so ever. It's not something that can be observed or experimented to make theories from...it has nothing to do with science.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Are you calling me insane???

I think I have plenty of sanity. I have accepted science AND religion. Neither of them will ever be PROVEN as FACT, but I believe aspects of both. I DO NOT believe the creation story of the old testament in a literal sense. There are very few things that I do believe in the Bible in a literal sense. I don't think anyone should believe the bible like that. That's like saying the WWE is real wrestling (oh shit that's on now, I should watch it)...I do still have faith though.

But I still don't see why creationism would ever be taught in a science class...that just doesn't make any sense what so ever. It's not something that can be observed or experimented to make theories from...it has nothing to do with science.


It's in this sense that religion can at least have its own place. I would never want religion removed from teaching; its obviously a huge part of our society. But it should never be interpreted scientifically. Religion CAN provide morals and for some people it answers their PHILOSOPHICAL questions of life. But for the scientific answers? Never. I agree with PianoMan on these points wholeheartedly.

[The Batman]

That is exactly how I feel Jared right down to wwe.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

That is exactly how I feel Jared right down to wwe.

And like him you are entitled to your very own ideas and faith. Just make sure others with similar ideals but more fundamentalist ends don't try to put pseudoscience into the curriculum. Creation myths (yes... they're defined as myths don't shoot the messenger) have their place in theology class. Not Biology.

[Callwaiting]

We were taught evolution at school as a theory, because it is a theory, no matter how much proof we have.
However one time our teacher took us to the computer rooms as a joking around lesson to show us creationism, and how dinosaurs didn't really exist, they were actually dragons -.- ...

tbh I find it a bit sick that in places like texas they're pushing to give creationism an equal place in the public classroom.
Bear in mind that this is the same place whose citizens united to try to ban Harry Potter because it encouraged witchcraft.

[Sapphire]

tbh I find it a bit sick that in places like texas they're pushing to give creationism an equal place in the public classroom.

You find it sick that places are trying to reduce ignorance by giving students information on religious views?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

You find it sick that places are trying to reduce ignorance by giving students information on religious views?

No... by all means teach religion in a RELIGION CLASS. You're PROMOTING ignorance of the real facts by teaching it in SCIENCE CLASS. See the difference?

[Techno Monster]

You find it sick that places are trying to reduce ignorance by giving students information on religious views?



^ I know I do.
Just because Christanity is a popular religon, does not mean that in class rooms, people have to shove it down our throats. And who says that the big bang theory is ignorant?

[Sapphire]

No... by all means teach religion in a RELIGION CLASS. You're PROMOTING ignorance of the real facts by teaching it in SCIENCE CLASS. See the difference?

I never said that it should be taught in science. I was questioning his statement that it shouldn't be taught in general in a state school classroom.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I never said that it should be taught in science. I was questioning his statement that it shouldn't be taught in general in a state school classroom.

Well in public school (grades 1 to 8) they've already got enough classes for the whole day (no time for religion that doesn't really apply to LEARNING things for getting a job... except maybe as a priest :D). In High School theology should be an elective that a student can CHOOSE to participate in, not mandatory.

[theOperaGhost]

^ I know I do.
Just because Christanity is a popular religon, does not mean that in class rooms, people have to shove it down our throats. And who says that the big bang theory is ignorant?

What if I don't want history or math or science shoved down my throat? I don't find history important, so why should I have to sit in a boring class, listening to shit that I either know already or don't give a fuck about? Because some people do find history important. Exactly the same thing with religion.

I think a better comparison would actually be a literature class. Why did I have to read Beowulf? It's obviously not true. I didn't want to read it, but it was shoved down my throat.

I also would never say that the Big Bang THEORY is ignorant. There so far hasn't been any evidence to prove it false. It is a theory, nonetheless, so it is possible that it is false. I accept both science and religion, btw.

EDIT: I just read ThatCanadianGuy's post and that is completely true. Theology should never be mandatory. It should be an elective, but it should still be offered. Hell, my senior year the only mandatory classes I had to take were Speech/Journalism OR English/Literature IV AND Problems of Democracy.

[Sapphire]

Well in public school (grades 1 to 8) they've already got enough classes for the whole day (no time for religion that doesn't really apply to LEARNING things for getting a job... except maybe as a priest :D). In High School theology should be an elective that a student can CHOOSE to participate in, not mandatory.

So your educational system encourages ignorance on the topic of religion and religious beliefs?

[Underground_Network]

^^ Very much so.

Maybe religious toleration, appreciation of other religions, and acknowledgment of other religion's belief systems, but religious beliefs should not be taught at a public school, as there are students of many different religions, and even those who claim to possess no religion, and something like religion is a topic that shouldn't be emphasized in school.

The only class I could see religion coming up in is History, and maybe English. Something like making kids say prayers shouldn't be done in school. And with Creationism, what class would it fall under? It wouldn't be taught in history as it is possess no historical relevance. It has nothing to do with English [unless there is some famous novel that deals with it, which there might well be], I don't see it coming up in Math class, I really don't see it coming up in World Language. It certainly shouldn't be taught in Science class, and I really don't see it coming up in any other class, except, as TCG said, in a Theology course [in high school or college].

Religion SHOULD be left out of the classroom, unless of course its being looked at from an objective standpoint and has something to do with the curriculum in the course its being brought up in.

[Sapphire]

No wonder your country is in such a state then...

[Underground_Network]

^^ What does that have to do with religion not being in education? Please, explain to me that. If anything, as NOFX's The Idiots Are Taking Over goes:

it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?

Mensa membership conceding
tell me why and how are all the stupid people breeding
Watson, it's really elementary
the industrial revolution
has flipped the bitch on evolution
the benevolent and wise are being thwarted, ostracized, what a bummer
the world keeps getting dumber
insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason

darwin's rollin over in his coffin
the fittest are surviving much less often
now everything seems to be reversing, and it's worsening
someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule
and im startin to feel a lot like charlton heston
stranded on a primate planet
apes and orangutans that ran it to the ground
with generals and the armies that obeyed them
followers following fables
philosophies that enable them to rule without regard

there's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated
political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred
majority rule, don't work in mental institutions
sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions

what are we left with?
a nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists
who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland
pass on traditions
how to get ahead religions
And prosperity via simpleton culture

the idiots are takin over [x8]

Its our leaders who are fucking up our country, not the general population. Not us, the core of America. Its those in charge, who have a bible under their pillow and follow it like it will lead us to something greater. Almost every American president has been somewhat religious, but those who let religion get in the way have been pretty terrible presidents. And I still don't see how NOT teaching Creationism in our schools has put our country in the state its in.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

No wonder your country is in such a state then...

I'd have to agree with Underground Network. This statement was extremely ignorant. You have no idea about my country; if you DID, then you would realize how hypocritical your statement was. Which country (if we can recall) is going through an economic depression due to voting a MONKEY into the White House 2 times in a ROW? Oh... the country that teaches Creationism in SCIENCE class. Whoops.

[Underground_Network]

She's not from the United States, but my country, which is the United States, at least for the majority, does not teach creationism in school [at least not on the East Coast in public high schools], though I could see them learning creationism in place of evolution in the Bush state.

EDIT: Oh wait, now I see what you were saying, no need for me to counter, didn't mean to sound defensive, but I still do mean what I say [sort of 0.o].

[Sapphire]

I meant that no wonder your country is full of ignorance and prejudice if something as basic and widespread as religion isn't even discussed properly.

[Bobby]

You cannot compare religious science relations to what is happening in our country. This teaching is influencing the children, not the government making decisions.

[Sapphire]

The government has a department in charge of what is covered in the educational setting, so yes the governments decisions are affecting the children. Having religious studies in schools helps eliminate ignorance and promotes acceptance. By not teaching it the government are, in effect, allowing the opposite to occur.

[Bobby]

You say our country is in "such a state", but do you honestly think that the teaching of creationism really causes our economic and worldly problems? Cause to me, that makes no sense. I don't agree with teaching this in school - I think basic science should be tought in public school and if people want to be educated on other theories they go elsewhere. But this has minimal effect on our country and our main problems.

[Sapphire]

I'm not talking specifically about creationism. I'm talking generally about religion and religious beliefs.
I feel my last post illustrated that point enough, but evidently it didn't.

[Bobby]

Hmm..now I see. I agree that religion shouldn't be taught in a public school. But I don't see how any of this effects our current problems.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Hmm..now I see. I agree that religion shouldn't be taught in a public school. But I don't see how any of this effects our current problems.

Exactly, and who says we need to be accepting of religions in the first place? I mean I don't care if you want to have your religion... it's your right to have it. But it doesn't mean I have to act like I RESPECT it. I don't respect what I believe is nonsense. Religious beliefs are personal and shouldn't be any of other people's damn business (pardon the pun).

[Sapphire]

It is relevant because I disagree that creationism shouldn't be covered at all in the classroom purely on the basis that it is a religious belief. People would benefit from a comprehensive education in the basics of each major religion which quashes myths about them and encouraging people to accept them. This would help reduce the problems in the US (and others) which actually stem from ignorance.

Refusal to accept differing religions only breeds more ignorance, mistrust, discrimination and hatred. It doesn't benefit anyone but hurts many.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I think it's been made pretty clear that people will ALWAYS be ignorant... regardless of what anybody thinks might "help".

[Sapphire]

We can limit their ignorance by giving them correct information about things and groups of people. This won't solve everything, but it can really make the world a better place for people to live in.

[Underground_Network]

Saying someone who doesn't tolerate every religion is ignorant [and vice versa] is prejudice in itself.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Back on topic here guys; this isn't about social concerns over offending people, or being ignorant. This thread is about ignorance to fact and scientific theories that are 150 years old; not really up for debate anymore.

[rainebg]

this creationism is school stuff is bullshit. It has no scientific basis whatsoever and is a religious idea. I didnt even know that this was still going on i figured that the U.S. would have the sense not to teach religious ideas in public schools. I live in New Jersey (as opposed to the bible belt) and they touched on evolution briefly(for like a minute in passing) but they dont teach creationism at all.

[Attax]

I don't advocate for either one really being taught. I believe that if you really care one would do their own research (which is why i am a creationist). At my school they really do not teach either one; however, being a creationist I wish they would actually teach evolution because then I could be more broad minded to the aspect, no matter if I believe it is true or not. For what grounds do I have to stand in an argument until I know both sides?