Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

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.

I don't think there is "A" specific Eureka moment in regards to Evolutionary Theory. I could point to several off the top of my head with "On the Origin of Species" being just one of the many. Understanding that Neanderthal was not a deformed modern human, the finding of the first H. Erectus remains in the 1890's, uncovering "Lucy", the Laetoli footprints proving that early hominids were walking upright at a time that was predicted under the tenets of evolutionary theory... Genetics is one of the biggest though. It's given us so much insight to our own past as well as opened up new possibilities for understanding the development and convergent evolution of othewr closely related members of our own Genus as well as the Pan Genus, it gave us a mountain of information regarding Neanderthals and confirmed a lot of work I was personally involved in in the 90's, showed us our family tree was much bushier than expected with the discovery of H. Altaiensis(Denisovan) as well as showed us that there is another as yet unidentified West African Hominid that we haven't located any physical remains of as yet. To me, the joy of Anthropology has always been the simple fact that one Eureka moment always leads to another and not only that, but many times, a line of research that turns out to be incorrect can, by figuring out where we went wrong, also turn us towards that next Eureka moment. I fully expect that we will have many more before I'm dead and many more in succession long after I pass into whatever comes next.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I only flicked through this thread to see which members would be supportive of creative writing or magic being added to the science curriculum.

No surprises, carry on.

creative writing acknowledges in those very words that what is being written is not meant to be taken as a factual iteration of current events or world history.

and...magic? really? lets be serious here.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

creative writing acknowledges in those very words that what is being written is not meant to be taken as a factual iteration of current events or world history.

and...magic? really? lets be serious here.

Why I couldn't agree more.

originally posted by: randyvs
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.

Quite possibly the most rational reply in this entire thread. Well done Randy! I think that is the entire crux of the argument though...science belongs in a science class, theology belongs in its own specific curriculum. Personally, and I've said it a million times, I find that religion and faith are such personal things that they are best learned and appreciated at home and within the community that your faith is associated with...your congregation. There is so little consensus even amongst the multitude of Christian denominations themselves, that to even design a curriculum properly is a chore and either way... it just doesn't belong in a science based classroom. I'm all for having electives where students can choose which religions and philosophies they wish to study and it alleviates any issues of forcing anyone to sit through a class that isn't their cup of tea because at the heart of the matter, let's be honest... Creationism refers to a Christ-centric creation story and it's Christians who are the predominant proponents of this ethos. Would most Christians want their children to sit through an Islamic based religious course or a Hindu or Buddhist course? In most cases, I think the answer would be a resounding no.

Sorry, was a bit busy the past day. Did I leave anyone's responses unanswered (that someone else didn't answer)? Just wanted to make sure you know I didn't forget about you

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

This is a typical evolutionist lie

We are not against science, we are against lies, pseudo science that isnt repeatable testable or observable

Where is the fossil record

a reply to: borntowatch

why provide the answer when you will just move the goal posts again?

originally posted by: borntowatch
Where is the fossil record

Deep beneath your feet.

and here is the antithesis that apparently just desperately needed to be posted.

Why Creationism Should be Taught in Science Class

have fun.

originally posted by: borntowatch


We are not against science, we are against lies, pseudo science that isnt repeatable testable or observable

So you're against Creationism then? You're so confusing sometimes. You mus have those goalposts mounted on wheels by now to make them easier to move right?

Where is the fossil record.

In the ground, in museums around the world, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, nearly every university in the world... Do you need other points of reference? Or is your rebuttal going to consist of allusions towards the ineffectiveness of various dating techniques and how it all invidates the fossil record?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

This is a typical evolutionist lie

We are not against science, we are against lies, pseudo science that isnt repeatable testable or observable

Where is the fossil record

What a load of transparent hogwash! You are the creationist worst enemy, constantly putting your foot in your mouth making creationist look like delusional loons. Are you purposely trying to make creationist look bad? Are you trying to discredit Christianity? We can see the strawman you construct, you're only fooling yourself and maybe one or two ignorant fanboys.
If you truly want to debate evolution, you must first have a vested interest in learning everthing you can about what the science actually says about the theory, this does not include pretending you know what your talking about! In this way you can address any actual weakness instead of these phony parodies you come up with.

originally posted by: Megatronus

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: Megatronus

originally posted by: randyvs

Looks like one hell of a train wreck to me.

You can't use the word faith and evolution in the same sentence. You don't need faith to believe in evolution, there os mountains of evidence supporting it. Calling it coincidences willfully ignores the simplicity and beauty of how it works.

you can certainly use faith and evolution in the same sentence! Just because there's evidence for something doesn't mean no faith is involved. Accepting evolution requires faith in its gaps. Or faith that "in time, science will be able to explain that gap." With science in general, faith is involved if one makes the claim that science will be able to explain 'this' or 'all things we currently do not understand.' You have zero evidence with such a claim. 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.

I have a question, a legitimate one:
So let's assume abiogenesis. You've got this one (or did multiple microscopic organisms result from abiogenesis?) microscopic organism resulting from inanimate matter. What drove it and allowed it to reproduce?
Let's assume it does reproduce, this organism successfully mutated to better fit its environment? It didn't ever fail, and consequentially die off? It really got that lucky? If we're dealing with one, or even several unicellular, microscopic organisms, they seriously were capable of and managed to successfully mutate before dying off? Did this primordial soup just keep #ting out organisms and one finally got lucky over and over again, thousands of times, without dying off? This sounds like a lot of probability.
And this organism, though microscopic, eventually spread out far enough to have a different environment in which to adapt to, allowing for different species to develop? Or did multiple organisms arise from the primordial soup, all of which were lucky enough thousands of times to adapt better to their enviroment, but who adapted differently, causing different species to arise?
I'm just imagining this from the start. Not only, to me, does the probability of inorganic matter becoming organic seem astronomically impossible, but also that it just had the drive to replicate, and the odds of these replications successfully adapting to the environment before dying off, not just once, but over and over again. And then, they became so spread out that different species developed. The only natural predator for the original life was the environment. And either these microscopic organisms spread out enough to develop into different species, or multiple species arose in the primordial ooze. Either way, they all did so without dying off.

Or were all properly and perfectly adapted to their environment in the primordial ooze? Then why the drive to replicate? Mutations just errors in the replication that somehow managed to produce better surviving organisms without dying off first.

Maybe I have a huge misconception about this... So I legitimately ask that someone point it out respectfully if this is the case. From my limited, partially forgotten education on the matter, this is what im picturing, however.

No you only need faith when there is no evidence. Once evidence has been collected faith is no longer required.

The interpretation of evidence requires the application of models of causality which are usually not directly observable in the evidence. Without those models, there is no interpretation. As the models themselves are rational constructs and not directly observable, there has to be some reliance on the validity of the models: faith in them.

Faith (trust in the unseen) is required.

a reply to: flyingfish

There's a plot twist! A proponent of evolution posing as a creationist to make creationism look bad. ...this complicates matters somewhat.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I only flicked through this thread to see which members would be supportive of creative writing or magic being added to the science curriculum.

No surprises, carry on.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". - Arthur C. Clarke.

But seriously, magic and a monotheistic and supreme God are not compatible concepts. Let me explain:

In a polytheistic view, the gods may be opposed by other gods and are under the influence of the laws of the 'realm of the gods'. Magic is the process of manipulating the gods through appeal to another god or an attempt to influence the realm of the gods towards inducing an outcome that the god/s may not wish to enact.

In the case of a supreme monotheistic God, there is no other authority or circumstance that can be used to manipulate. The supreme God is the source of all. Magic is ineffectual, to try and use it would display a misunderstanding of the nature of God.

originally posted by: peter vlar

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.

I don't think there is "A" specific Eureka moment in regards to Evolutionary Theory. I could point to several off the top of my head with "On the Origin of Species" being just one of the many. Understanding that Neanderthal was not a deformed modern human, the finding of the first H. Erectus remains in the 1890's, uncovering "Lucy", the Laetoli footprints proving that early hominids were walking upright at a time that was predicted under the tenets of evolutionary theory... Genetics is one of the biggest though. It's given us so much insight to our own past as well as opened up new possibilities for understanding the development and convergent evolution of othewr closely related members of our own Genus as well as the Pan Genus, it gave us a mountain of information regarding Neanderthals and confirmed a lot of work I was personally involved in in the 90's, showed us our family tree was much bushier than expected with the discovery of H. Altaiensis(Denisovan) as well as showed us that there is another as yet unidentified West African Hominid that we haven't located any physical remains of as yet. To me, the joy of Anthropology has always been the simple fact that one Eureka moment always leads to another and not only that, but many times, a line of research that turns out to be incorrect can, by figuring out where we went wrong, also turn us towards that next Eureka moment. I fully expect that we will have many more before I'm dead and many more in succession long after I pass into whatever comes next.

I would not omit Gregor Mendel's work on heritability, either. [sarcasm] oops, damn, he was an old-time monk and therefore a Creationist, so we probably cannot mention his stuff in a science class in the UK. [/sarcasm]

Nor would I omit the significant works in Geology and fossil analysis.

a reply to: chr0naut

I would hope you're simply being facetious with your "creationist Mendel" commentary because he followed the scientific method and his work holds up to scrutiny. As I said in my earlier post though, it was just a few off the top of my head. It's not a comprehensive list, it's an exemplar that there is no single moment in the study of biological evolution that is the capstone or Eureka moment. Clearly the contributions of geology, chemistry and physics in regards to the dating of remains and artifacts is crucial to our understanding of the past. I don't think there's anyone that would argue with that unless they are a total science denier.


ETA I see you added the sarcasm disclaimer... well done! Again, his work was well done, used the scientific method and is critical to what is being done today.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Wrong one has evidence one doesn't.

BOTH are based on a long list of unfounded assumptions... Such is science. Maybe you should study it sometime...

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Give some examples so I know what you are talking about. I mean I know that Phrenology itself is a pseudo-science, but are you referring to psychology in general here?

Yes, psychology in particular does not pass muster.

Psychology in regards to Freud and Jung as examples are not science, as many of their throries cannot be tested. However, that is the reason they are barely discussed in Psychology in a collegiate atmosphere unless it has to deal strictly with counseling and therapy. Psychology today is highly scientific. If a group of study used the scientific method in order to produce and replicate their studies, how is it not a science? Scientific method = science hands down and you or noone can deny it.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

However evolution isn't exactly science either is it. Neither should be taught in schools!

That statement ^^ is ridiculous.
But, I bet you're just trolling and trying to be funny....right?

Actually no... Evolution is based on as many unfounded assumptions as creationism is...

Could you point out a specific unfounded assumption that the Theory of Evolution makes? I'd like to discuss it with you if you wouldn't mind?

For starts people seem to assume that natural selection and evolution are the same thing.