Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: ffx6554
If we defined Evolution as a completely natural and random process, then at this point, Evolution looks more like a myth than Creationism. Evolution has two problems to overcome, and that is the Transitional Fossil Problem, and now what I'd call the Dispersion Problem. Quite frankly, at this point, genetic manipulation(which is Creationism in spirit) is as good a theory as any, and explains away both of these problems.

Genetic manipulation is not a theory. It has no evidence to back it up yet. It would be considered a hypothesis. A shakey one at that.

By transitional fossil are you refering to the so called missing link?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Surely the headline answered itself. Creationism isn't science-simple as that.

Scientific endeavors preceded the bible and it took more than two thousand years of failures and triumphs to get us to where we are today. There have been thousands of pages and scores of scientists over the course of history, Creationism can be summed up in a few paragraphs.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think this may have a bit to do with that as well.
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces

All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now, it protects climate education too.

There is the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. In other words, anti-evolutionists and climate deniers were both getting dumped on so much by the scientific community that they sort of naturally joined forces. And that makes sense: We know that in general, people gather their issue stances in bunches, because those stances travel together in a group (often under the aegis of a political party).

But there's also the "declining trust in science" theory, according to which political conservatives have, in general, become distrustful of the scientific community (we have data showing this is the case), and this has infected how they think about several different politicized scientific issues. And who knows: Perhaps the distrust started with the evolution issue. It is easy to imagine how a Christian conservative who thinks liberal scientists are full of it on evolution would naturally distrust said scientists on other issues as well.

This is a strawman.

I dont deny global warming, I am unsure its caused by man, it could be natural but hell, why not make up a few lies.

My issue was the east Anglia university problem.

But just continue with the lie, it helps your argument, baseless but sounds solid

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
Can you be more condescending? I have repeatedly stated my position as opinion, and you proceed by questioning my intelligence as to scientific terminology? See my post to Ghost as it explains my poorly worded original post, and a summation of my stance as it applies to the topic discussed.

I apologize, I wasn't trying to come off as condescending. It's just that when folks say stuff like, "evolution is just a theory, it's not a law" and suggest it means evolution isn't proven or solid, it only shows a gross misunderstanding of science itself. Generally, when somebody demonstrates that they clearly don't understand the terminology, it shows they aren't well versed in science.

When you said that you believed discussing creation had value in science class, I took it to mean you want it taught in the class. That was my mistake. I do disagree 100%, however, when you say it has value. I feel creationism has no place in a science class whatsoever. If folks want to debate philosophical positions they should do it in world religions or philosophy, not science. Evolution vs creationism isn't even a valid debate. The debate itself doesn't exist anywhere, it is 99% misunderstandings with science being corrected (ie the ridiculous notion that evolution is just a theory). Hopefully your children were able to show that they understood this when talking about it over dinner with you that night. Otherwise the school failed. I repeat, there is no evolution debate. There hasn't been since the early 1900s.

originally posted by: glend
Science and religion have the same goal and that is to find truth, Science might be considered more left-brained whilst religion right-brained. I have no problem seeing classes separated but feel that if both hemisphere's aren't joined we will fail to find the ultimate truth. So perhaps there should be an optional third class to try amalgamate the truth from both.

Most religions are not designed to find truth. They are designed to dictate what they call truth and require the believer to place faith in the dogma. They aren't seeking anything. They pretend they already have all answers and in some cases believe everyone else is wrong.

originally posted by: darkbake
Very interesting, I wasn't aware that it was called creationism to believe that God works through evolution. This is the closest to my belief. I never realized that there were different types of creationists.

Creationism generally refers to the literal biblical account of genesis in 6 days, 7-10 thousand years ago. I've seen it used in other contexts, but it's usually about the young earth crowd as they are the ones constantly arguing against science. Your view is perfectly rational because it doesn't involve overwriting scientific facts with literal versions of ancient stories, it agrees with the facts.

a reply to: humanityrising
Science says, "We don't know" all of the time. That's why scientists keep trying to figure things out. They don't know, but they want to know. We're talking about teaching science in science class and not religion. They don't claim evolution paints the entire picture, it merely paints the picture of how life changes over time. You mentioned that our reality behaves like software. Could you elaborate on that? Every comparison to any type of real software I've looked at is nothing even remotely close to how the universe functions. I'd be interested in seeing what factors demonstrate this idea.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

I wonder if Beer, or any of the other science minded
members of ATS would agree that " The Origin of Species"
is evolutions eureka moment?

I ask Beer because I've found him to be fair in the past.

Evolution's "eureka moment" came when we started studying genetics. Prior to that we didn't know squat about DNA and all we really had was human observation of creatures adapting and the fossil record, but evolution still made tons of predictions. Oddly enough, once we began studying genomes in depth it confirmed numerous evolutionary predictions, and showed the same exact thing that evolution had been claiming from the beginning. Decent with modification. Now we have several fields of science that all have independently verified the predictions of evolution and used it to benefit mankind with medicine. It wasn't really a single moment, it was just when the evidence became so overwhelming that denial became silly.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...

LMAO. Are you just making this up as you go along?

originally posted by: Achilles92x
1. Abiogenesis. I understand there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but evolution, from the non-deistic/non-theistic perspective that you would argue relies on abiogenesis.

FALSE. Pure materialism relies on abiogenesis, not evolution. You don't have to be atheist to agree with the science behind evolution.

2. The addition of information onto DNA.

This happens all the time.

3. Macro-evolution

No different from micro evolution, it's an accumulation of micro evolutionary changes.

You keep saying evolution as a natural phenomenon is fact. Micro-evolution is fact... Not macro-evolution. Please be more specific. Evolution producing new species is not a factual natural phenomenon.

That's a flat out lie. There is no micro and macro evolution. There is only evolution. The only difference between the 2 is time and accumulation.

4. Multi-verse and fine tuning of the universe for life on Earth.

Has absolutely zero to do with evolution and there is no evidence for the fine tuning of anything.

Once again, I understand that this is not part of the theory of evolution, but it is still an assumption that non-deistic/non-theistic evolution must rely on.

Nobody cares about non-deistic/non theistic evolution. Evolution is evolution. The facts speak for themselves whether you believe god created evolution as a tool or not. It doesn't change a thing about evolution itself. It still functions via genetic mutations and natural selection.

Why do you care if they teach creationism in school? I get your arguments. You don't feel like it is science--I don't disagree with you. If it's so overwhelmingly the proven, realistic answer, then people will see that and accept it,

People do see that and accept it. 99% of biologists agree with it, and even the pope accepts it now. There isn't even an argument about the validity of evolution anymore. It's accepted by everybody aside from religious fundamentalists. "Who cares" isn't a valid reason to teach creationism in school as science. In science, you teach science. Bottom line. Your idea opens to door to teach any possible thing in class, like the great gnome in the sky. That is a waste of class time and should not happen.

And please stop equating folks that accept evolution as fact with atheists. That isn't always the case, evolution isn't a atheistic position, it's a scientific one and you are acting like you can't believe in god if you accept evolution. That's sillyness.


Yes, we do need critical thinking, but teaching kids myths and faith based beliefs in science is not even close to critical thinking and it changes the focus of the class. Science class should be about science. Some kids want to be scientists when they grow up, so stop trying to rob their future by suggesting most of the information is useless. That's the furthest thing from reality, just look around you and check how many of the things in the room you are in right now are products of science.

Accepting evolution requires faith in its gaps. Or faith that "in time, science will be able to explain that gap."

No, sorry you are dead wrong here. Evolution requires no faith. It has been observed in real time and in the long term via the fossil record. Just because we don't have every single fossil to ever live doesn't mean the theory is full of gaps. The theory is solid and can be observed simply by mapping a genome from one generation to the next.

For all we know, we could, with science, only grasp 0.001% of all things that we could know. I'll be generous instead and say we know 1%. Knowing that little and continuing to know each little minuscule, negligible addition bit by bit does not qualify as evidence that we will eventually understand and explain the unknown.

Not a good arguement at all... You are guessing with your numbers, and even still let's pretend your 1% guess is right. That is still a crapload when you think of how huge the universe is. Stop acting like not knowing every single detail of everything is some kind of shortcoming of science. It's not. It's the reason we keep looking to expand our knowledge.

That's some serious opinion right there. I disagree. The crazy thing about evidence is... It can be used and spun in different ways! Evidence can be used for confirmation bias! Evidence can be interpreted as cause and effect, when in reality it may simply be correlation! What's the overarching theme here? Belief. Belief has an effect on everything. Evidence is altered by human perspective

Can you please show me where the faith is when discussing genetic mutations and natural selection. Which one is a guess, and why? Stop trying to paint evolution like a religion. It's not even close.

a reply to: borntowatch

Um... You just confirmed what the article said though. People who don't believe in evolution are unlikely to believe in man made climate change, and that is EXACTLY what you are and just said. Therefore I see no evidence presented to suggest that your claim of it being a strawman is true. Do you even know what a strawman argument actually IS?

There is no debate on natural climate change, people tend not to disbelieve THAT theory.

Just checked and Talkorigins is still live on the web.
There's 15 years worth of moderated discussion between intelligent people on both sides of the various arguments there- and they are still no further along.

Kids should be taught that if our existence were a crime, Creationists are the people who refuse to look at the evidence whilst Evolutionists cant bring themselves to consider motive.

a reply to: Barcs

It wasn't really a single moment, it was just when the evidence became so overwhelming that denial became silly.

See now that's what I understood Barcs.
That if there was a eureka moment for evolution ever?
It happened during the study of genetics and in no way
was any single event. Not some one hundred and fifty
year old book written by some dead white bearded old
man after years of searching the fossil record looking for
biased confirmation. Because of the bitterness he felt
for his Creator.

a reply to: Jukiodone

You can't consider motive until you can prove that motive for the event in question even exists. Everything we have observed about the universe at large and evolution suggests that there is no destination or purpose for it, and if there is one, it's so far in the future that we can't even see it or think about it. That's why evolution doesn't discuss motive, there is no evidence to suggest it exists. Present some evidence for motive then we can talk. In order for a topic to be considered scientific, one most only discuss the things that we can prove or have evidence showing can happen. All other stuff is just hypothetical and can continue no further than a philosophy classroom.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Just checked and Talkorigins is still live on the web.
There's 15 years worth of moderated discussion between intelligent people on both sides of the various arguments there- and they are still no further along.

Kids should be taught that if our existence were a crime, Creationists are the people who refuse to look at the evidence whilst Evolutionists cant bring themselves to consider motive.

That's the most profound and truthful thing I've read in sometime.

originally posted by: Megatronus

originally posted by: Achilles92x


I will start with abiogenesis which really has nothing to do with evolution. It's a completely different kettle of fish. That is also just a hypothesis. That does require a cetain amount of faith to believe as it's not backed up by the evidence yet. Notice I said yet, there are currently plenty of experiments ongoing testing this hypothesis. I don't see any experiments tying to prove the biblical account mainly because 'God did it' is not testable or repeatable.

When I used the term evidence I was referring to it in terms of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has mounds of evidence to support it and I believe there is not a shred of evidence tha disputes it. So she it comes to Evolution, a theory with such a wide base of supporting evidence, faith is not needed to believe

This not evidence, That is opinion. Evidence can be tested and repeated. What you stated of evidence is your opinion and personal experience, nothing more.

I'm not here to rain on your parade and tell you god isn't real. I wouldn't, there is no evidence for or against his existence. So, the jury is out on that as far as I'm concerned. All Im saying is Evolution has enough evidence it requires no faith and that personal experience and opinion is not evidence of anything.

I've stated several times that I fully understand abiogenesis and evolution are two entirely different things, BUT that that a non-theistic view of evolution DEPENDS on abiogenesis. Are you going to refute that?
If not abiogenesis as it is conceived, then what, was life created?
I believe in God, but I accept evolution. I have no qualms with any accepted scientific hypotheses and theories, I freaking love science, I just think it's missing a major compenent. I do not think theism and science are mutually exclusive. I've also said several times that my care about the HOW question of the origins of the universe and development of life is limited only to curiosity. I don't get why creationists care if Genesis was literal, I don't think that Christianity depends on it.

As to evidence of God being opinion... Sure, my personal experiences are opinion, but they have been strangely testable for me. Whether you believe in God or not, evolution or not, we are beings that ended up logical and emotional. It is foolish and naive us to abandon one spectrum of ourselves--the emotional--and deem it useless for understanding the universe.
As for the logic, Logic pointing toward God is just as valid as atheist logic against Him. An individual's logic isn't a universal law, and when dealing with the questions of all questions, I dare say it is partially--just partially, not entirely--useless.

The fine-tuning of the universe, and other scientific evidence that many vastly more educated and intelligent than I in their scientific field have pointed to as signs of a creator, on the other hand, isn't very much opinion. The evidence could be used for a creator, and it could also be used for a multiverse. To that extent, it is an opinion, a perspective of the evidence dependent on beliefs like I've described above.
However, I would argue the idea of a multiverse containing infinite, infinite universes not only still fails to address just how that whole absurd thing got started (where a creator outside space and time does not), but also seems more outrageous than the idea of a creator itself. It blows my mind that people are so readily accepting of such a speculation and that, to me, suggests they might moreso just be interested in denying God.

Faith is still required in science. Faith does not suddenly make something a religion.. That is an outrageous argument to make. I have a boatload of evidence to suggest that my girlfriend would never cheat on me, but I still have faith that she will not. Of course, this evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. a huge issue is that atheists have a negative connotation of faith, and that atheists and theists have a DIFFERENT definition of faith. It's weird, too, you claim to have no belief without evidence for scientific shortcomings, because there is evidence elsewhere, so "faith is not required." Yet I and many see that a strikingly strange claim. Simultaneously, you would claim we have a bunch of faith without evidence.

My other point, believing in creationism doesn't seem to prevent intelligence and critical thinking, and belief in evolution doesn't seem to promote them. There are still geniuses in every camp. Teaching both views (and yes, they could certainly come up with a quick overview of creationists views and collaborate perceived evidence for fine tuning and creation of the universe) and prompting children to assess the views based on their evidence COULD benefit critical thinking. Teaching one view, even if it's the vastly more empirically evidenced view, mostly only teaches how to memorize and accept what you are taught... Seeing as one's views of the origins of the universe and progression of life have zero impact on their occupation--unless you're studying disease or any other field dependent on a thorough understanding of evolution--then I vote for critical thinking over being conditioned to accept solely what is taught.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy man, why didn't you just answer the heading in four
simple words?

Because theology isn't science.

You could even elaborate quickly that evolution is science.

And therefor theological discussions do not belong in science
class. But electives on theology should be offered. That would
seem more than fair enough to me.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy man, why didn't you just answer heading in four
simple words.

Because theology isn't science.

You could even elaborate quickly that evolution is science.

And therefor theological discussions do not belong in science
class. But electives on theology should be offered. That would
seem more than fair enough to me.

I'm glad that you can logically see this as a common sense solution, and I agree with you, but there are people where this needs to be explained to. I posted a link earlier in the thread (I don't remember which page, sorry) that showed all the states that have schools that teach Creationism as science in them. This includes public schools too. In fact, two states still have laws on the books saying that it is allowed (despite a SCOTUS ruling saying otherwise).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

K, then I'm with you on this certainly. I don't even see the big problem.

a reply to: randyvs

Hmmm... it's nice to agree for once. I feel like I've talked to quite a few posters that I am usually at odds with within in the last week or so that I am suddenly agreeing with.