Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

Today in history class you learn that Ancient people in Greek, Egypt, Summeria etc. all had belief system, some of them believed in Zeus and Mt. Olympus, other in afterlife and preparation for it through preservation of corpse,....

One day today's religion will become one of those things young reader will have hard time to understand - why would people believe everything was created by an angry being?! How could you believe in something without any proof while being in denial for everything we know about universe and life?!

Hard to imagine today, but time like this is coming... probably faster then some hope... still not fast enough in my opinion...

And yes, religion will be again in school books, but mostly in Historical books, as there is not much literal value in fairy tales... and most of those in religious books are not for kids anyway - rater R material...

a reply to: peter vlar

Please show me one example of evolution being repeatedly tested and confirmed? Did you even read and understand what you have posted?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Barcs

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?

NO! Darwins work was heavily influenced and shamelessly influenced by his own experiences and world views.

Source, or it didn't happen. Even if true, how does it affect the valid science that backs evolution?

The first and biggest ASSUMPTION that people make about the "THEORY" of evolution is that Evolution is somehow SCIENTIFIC FACT when in fact it is ONLY a "THEORY"... Hence the title "DARWINS THEORY OF EVOLUTION".

The oldest strawman argument in the book. Sad that you attack science while not even understanding the very basic terminology. You do know the definition of "scientific theory" right?

And FYI, it's called the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, not Darwin's theory of evolution lol. The evidence behind the theory has increased 100 fold since Darwin's day.

Like I said, you are just making this up. You provide no facts, no information, no argument. You just state these false things as if they are true. Essentially you are just parroting what you read on a creationist website or what a crooked preacher told you.

Science denial in 2015 is ludicrous. Sorry. Debunking science requires actual evidence of an alternative theory or evidence that falsifies it. Do you have this? If so, you'll become famous overnight, but we all know that you don't. You consider your worldview absolute truth and can't bear to consider it may possibly be wrong or not the literal genesis account of creation.

Please show me one example of evolution being repeatedly tested and confirmed? Did you even read and understand what you have posted?

We all know you are going to move the goalposts the second he posts it and attempt to redefine the theory of evolution or change the meaning of terms to suit your agenda. You aren't fooling anybody. Either you have evidence of an alternative theory, evidence that falsifies evolution, or you have nothing to add to the conversation.

www.talkorigins.org...

Start here. Please debunk this evidence without redefining terminology or posting fallacies. I'd love to see a creationist even try this but they have never once done it since I started posting in this section. Can you break the stereotype of ignoring evidence or will you address it with a logical argument and facts? Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evidence? What evidence? Please tell me that you at least understand the difference between natural selection and evolution and then give me ONE example something evolving? And don't even try to tell me that Darwins work was uninfluenced by his life experience and world view. And again? Of what evidence of evolution did he find? Please regale me with you knowledge and understanding. Is it the bird that swims underwater of the lizard that the entire proof of Darwins theory is based on?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: peter vlar

Please show me one example of evolution being repeatedly tested and confirmed? Did you even read and understand what you have posted?

Question was not for me, but let me share some examples and explain why and how...

As time is quite a problem in observing evolution, scientist use animals with short life cycle. Some examples you can find on following link:

www.decodedscience.com...

There are many examples and experiments are repetable and true...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Today in history class you learn that Ancient people in Greek, Egypt, Summeria etc. all had belief system, some of them believed in Zeus and Mt. Olympus, other in afterlife and preparation for it through preservation of corpse,....

One day today's religion will become one of those things young reader will have hard time to understand - why would people believe everything was created by an angry being?! How could you believe in something without any proof while being in denial for everything we know about universe and life?!

Hard to imagine today, but time like this is coming... probably faster then some hope... still not fast enough in my opinion...

And yes, religion will be again in school books, but mostly in Historical books, as there is not much literal value in fairy tales... and most of those in religious books are not for kids anyway - rater R material...

The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evidence? What evidence? Please tell me that you at least understand the difference between natural selection and evolution and then give me ONE example something evolving? And don't even try to tell me that Darwins work was uninfluenced by his life experience and world view. And again? Of what evidence of evolution did he find? Please regale me with you knowledge and understanding. Is it the bird that swims underwater of the lizard that the entire proof of Darwins theory is based on?

Darwin's finches

Following his return from the voyage, Darwin presented the finches to the Geological Society of London at their meeting on 4 January 1837, along with other mammal and bird specimens that he had collected. The bird specimens, including the finches, were given to John Gould, the famous English ornithologist, for identification. Gould set aside his paying work and at the next meeting, on 10 January, reported that the birds from the Galápagos Islands that Darwin had thought were blackbirds, "gross-beaks" and finches were actually "a series of ground Finches which are so peculiar [as to form] an entirely new group, containing 12 species". This story made the newspapers.[9][10]

Darwin had been in Cambridge at that time. In early March, he met Gould again and for the first time got a full report on the findings, including the point that his Galápagos "wren" was another closely allied species of finch. The mockingbirds that Darwin had labelled by island were separate species rather than just varieties. Gould found more species than Darwin had expected,[11] and concluded that 25 of the 26 land birds were new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but closely allied to those found on the South American continent.[10] Darwin now saw that, if the finch species were confined to individual islands, like the mockingbirds, this would help to account for the number of species on the islands, and he sought information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy’s steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant Covington, who had labelled them by island.[12] From these, Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations from where he had collected his own specimens. The conclusions supported his idea of the transmutation of species.[10]

I'm curious if you even KNOW the definition of natural selection. Also, why is it that -I- have to keep presenting evidence for YOUR claims? You state these things as true, so produce some evidence. Show me why you are correct instead of me proving you wrong all the time.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Please tell me that you at least understand the difference between natural selection and evolution

I already gave you a full run through of the differences. Did you miss it? or did you simply plug your ears, close your eyes, and scream at the top of your lungs "LALALALALALALALA"?

I have no idea where you're getting the concept that the theory of evolution claims it's the same as natural selection, or that anyone else but people like you claim it is?

What is the point you're trying to prove?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t
and then give me ONE example something evolving? And don't even try to tell me that Darwins work was uninfluenced by his life experience and world view. And again? Of what evidence of evolution did he find? Please regale me with you knowledge and understanding. Is it the bird that swims underwater of the lizard that the entire proof of Darwins theory is based on?

Since you're so keen on ignoring people's posts. I'll repost what KrazySh0t just showed you...

Darwin's Finches

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!

History isn't science. Nice try.

www.talkorigins.org...

I'll post this again for you. Please debunk the evidence itself without redefining terminology or posting fallacies. Good luck. You have the opportunity to shine, don't blow it!

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: peter vlar
Unfortunately you seem to be unfamiliar with basic scientific philosophy and how it applies to the scientific process. It is I must admit a constant course of ire that people constantly refer to Newton LAWS of physics. Modern quantum physics has no problems making the statement "what goes up must come down" a completely inadequate and inappropriate way to describe the world around us. Yes what goes up must come down... Most of the time. This however is hardly a rule and the resulting theory's of gravity based upon this 'LAW' are completely preposterous.
There is nothing like a little quantum mechanics to change your perception of what id real and what is a 'LAW'.

It's really cute how you question other peoples understanding of the science while simultaneously demonstrating that you don't actually seem to have a very firm grasp of it. Case in point, your continuous barrage of all caps LAW references as if a Scientific Law is somehow superior to a Theory when they have two very different functions. Laws cover the predictability of something whereas Theories explain the why and how. Evolution is an observable fact whether you choose to understand that fact or not. It doesn't need your blessing to continue to operate unimpeded.

Please show me one example of evolution being repeatedly tested and confirmed? Did you even read and understand what you have posted?

Richard Lenski's long term E. Coli experiment is a prime example- myxo.css.msu.edu...

Here is some information on fruit fly experiments- evolution.berkeley.edu...

Some further reading for you- ncse.com...

For the record though, since your so into misconceptions about how others view evolutionary theory, another very large misconception in play here is that all of science is limited to controlled laboratory experiments as this simply is not the case. The vast majority of science is done by gathering real world data.

Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I have to wonder if Creationism and anti-evolution beliefs are spreading, or shrinking. It feels like they are spreading, but I have no statistics.

They are shrinking. That's why SOME heads are spinning around and SOME eyes are bugging out and hysteria is now reigning among the Evangelicals. It's real-life death throes we are witnessing. What do they call it? Oh yeah, the 'death rattle.'

I always find it interesting when a wacky new age Woo-Woo of the first order slams the beliefs of others and sees no hypocrisy in their own miserable hatred and angst.

You might be confused and consider your intellect as knowledge? Intellect is okay and can be useful. It can also be a mighty pair of mental handcuffs. What makes your own unprovable esoteric meanderings any more valid than some of the folk you seeth at and slam? It's a sincere question. Say reincarnation for example: Wouldn't that be a faith-based belief?

a reply to: Achilles92x

Hi Achilles. I did read your posts. I just don't understand how you can claim you accept evolution, but then post a bunch of creationist talking points against it that don't even apply. If you accept it, why are you attempting to arguing against it?

Yeah, I said "gnome in the sky" because there is just as much objective evidence for that as there is for a creator or god deity of any kind. And by that I mean ZERO objective evidence. Science DOES NOT deal with things that can't be verified, so the position is not scientific. It's very simple actually. That isn't a strawman, that's the way it is. No evidence makes it unscientific and hence shouldn't be taught in science class. Otherwise you waste class time talking about personal opinions and worldviews. Should they teach flat earth theory or geocentrism as an alternative to helicentrism? Should they teach hollow earth as an alternative to gravity?

this alone does mean that its claims bear more legitimacy for examination than a great gnome or a omnipotent transracial eternal fecal matter or whatever outrageous, straw-man false equivalency one might come up with next.
Especially considering how tremendously more valid textual criticism deems the books of the Bible versus ANY other book of antiquity by far.

No it doesn't. It bears just as much legitimacy as greek god myths, Egyptian god myths, Roman god myths, Islam, Hinduism, etc. There is no objective evidence at all in favor any of them. People just read the stories and believe them. That makes the position, non scientific, hence not worthy of being taught in class.

I claimed that ones views about the how of the origin of the universe and how life developed has little relevance to a vast majority of the careers that people end up in.

Yes, and this is completely wrong. There are folks whose entire careers are based on studying and learning about the origin of the universe. Obviously not everybody does that, but to poo poo it away as if it doesn't matter when we live in a scientific technological society that thrives on scientific knowledge, is a bit overboard, IMO.

Their WHO and WHY of those matters much more often has an impact on their life.

Not really. It affects their worldview, not their actual reality. It seems like you are debating philosophy here, rather than science or advocating creationism to be taught as science. Critical thinking skills can be taught in any class. Critical thinking is not putting a scientific theory side by side with a complete guess and comparing them. There is nothing to compare, it teaches kids nothing aside from possibly influencing them to think religion is on equal footing with science by condoning a non-debate as a legitimate debate when it is not.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis, as Megatronus stated above, requires faith. Would you disagree with this? Why or why not? A hypothesis needs to be testable, and seeing as how awful they're doing with that whole testing of abiogenesis, I slightly doubt the legitimacy of calling a hypothesis. If abiogenesis can be taught in school, even though it requires faith and is hardly a hypothesis in anything but the name, why can't creationism be included?

Hilarious how you call the testing "awful" when there are multiple experiments that replicate certain parts of the process. Obviously it's not complete, but it's also not a complete guess either. In school they teach abiogenesis as a hypothesis, not a fact or scientific theory, so I do not see the problem. If the kids understand the scientific method and are taught what the terminology means, then what is the problem? Creationism is not even a hypothesis. It based on absolutely nothing, has no models, makes no predictions and basically has no evidence.

A tremendous test question promoting critical thinking would be: how does this idea differ from the theory of evolution in its scientific legitimacy?
If Jimmy can't answer that--at least according to you, who claims that evolution requires zero faith and is overwhelmingly the truth (and I don't disagree with that, I only think portions of it are lacking)--then Jimmy ISN'T going to do well as a scientist anyway.

What does the validity or backing of abiogenesis have to do with evolution requiring faith? Again, you are arguing materialism or atheism, not evolution. Abiogenesis has absolutely NOTHING do to with evolution, so your point is moot. There is a very simple answer if you actually mean creationism instead of abiogenesis by "this idea". There is no evidence. End of discussion, back to teaching science.

On the information being added to DNA, I mistyped. I'm referring to the addition of DNA to the point that it creates new species capable of reproducing, or which accounts for the entirety of earth life diversity.

Your point is easily answered by the accumulation of genetic changes over time and changes to the environment that kill off other species or subspecies allowing the modified ones to survive.

ultimately, evolution into new species cannot simply be written off as an accumulation of smaller mutations. That has not been observed--it is an assumption, one that i argue is faith based.

Um, yes it can. Evolution is defined by the accumulation of genetic changes sorted by the environment (natural selection). And yes, it HAS been observed in a lab and nature more than once. Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment as well as the ongoing ecoli experiment have demonstrated this concept precisely. Genetic changes accumulate. There is no debate on this fact in science. No organism is an exact duplicate of its parents, so it goes without saying that after thousands of generations the difference from the original creature will be greater the more time has passed. Generational genomes have been mapped and studied that show this.

Will dog breeding eventually create new separate species that are no longer what we know of as dog, given enough time?

It's possible, sure. Dogs are wolves that were domesticated by humans over the past 10,000 years+ and are no longer considered wolves. Some dogs can breed with them but the majority cannot.

Doesn't dog breeding force artificial selection, and in a way, alter generations quicker and quicker?

Yes it does. Since humans select, rather than nature, dogs become more adaptable to humans over the years and now they are regarded as "man's best friend". It is still governed by genetic mutations and selection, the selection is just made by us, not nature. One could argue that dogs are adapting to their environment, the environment that humans have made for them. Since humans pick what traits they like best, dogs won't just keep getting bigger unless humans overall prefer bigger dogs, but many of them like the mini dogs like poodles and hybrids of them. As long as people like the traits, the dogs will continue to "evolve" in the direction we choose.

I tried to keep this in a single post but couldn't. More coming below:

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I have to wonder if Creationism and anti-evolution beliefs are spreading, or shrinking. It feels like they are spreading, but I have no statistics.

They are shrinking. That's why SOME heads are spinning around and SOME eyes are bugging out and hysteria is now reigning among the Evangelicals. It's real-life death throes we are witnessing. What do they call it? Oh yeah, the 'death rattle.'

I always find it interesting when a wacky new age Woo-Woo of the first order slams the beliefs of others and sees no hypocrisy in their own miserable hatred and angst.

You might be confused and consider your intellect as knowledge? Intellect is okay and can be useful. It can also be a mighty pair of mental handcuffs. What makes your own unprovable esoteric meanderings any more valid than some of the folk you seeth at and slam? It's a sincere question. Say reincarnation for example: Wouldn't that be a faith-based belief?

BuzzyWigs isn't slamming anyone's beliefs. She is defending the misconceptions that many members here are placing upon Evolution, Science, and the education system.

I'm not quite sure which side you're on (the acceptance of Evolution, or the belief of Creation), but perhaps you're just misreading this particular comment from her. She is referring to the ever-shrinking population of Creationists due to more and more of them receiving better education, therefore being able to notice the delusional concepts within Creation.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The history books are full of science fairy tales... It's only appropriate that religion should be found there too!

History books is full of atrocities of those believing in fairy tales against those using their own head. Hundred of years of witch hunting and burning at stake... just to preserve illusion and keep ignorance?!

If I were you, I would not use history, science and religion in the same sentence...

Of course, you know that when you say 'fairy tales' - we all know you are talking about religion, do you??

a reply to: Achilles92x

continued from above:

All I'm saying is, I totally understand and AGREE, even, that what I meant by "micro-evolution" does indeed lead to "macro-evolution" given enough time and successive mutations. BUT, it is ultimately an assumption, and educated guess, even, but requires faith that such drastic mutations could result in an entirely new species (capable of reproducing) given enough time. And yes, I know it isn't POOF new species.

It's not an assumption when you can look at dozens of fossils and pin point exactly where traits began to develop and track their progress over time. A good example of this is whale evolution. The fossil record shows the legs getting smaller and smaller and becoming fins. Modern day whales still have remnants of legs and hips, which is a clear example. One of many. Fish with legs have been found along with dozens of other species that document these changes over time. It's like looking at quills on a dinosaur, watching them get bigger over time and lead to feathers, or looking at the how hominids brain size slowly increased over 7 million or so years to get to where we are today. There is a large wealth of evidence for this, and the mapping of genomes is the icing on the cake because not only did it confirm the numerous predictions made by the fossil record and evolution, it showed exactly when and how these changed happened genetically. The genetic history matches the fossil history in all creatures that we have studied on this level, including humans.

As for your fossil record claim, I haven't looked into it much recently, but many factors seem to suggest something very bizarre going on with it that discredits it in many people's eyes

Which factors are you referring to?

So you two feel that all evidence is equal? Evidence is evidence, and it's valid, providing that it is empirical?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. When an experiment in a lab clearly shows something is true or false, then there is really no way to argue with it. This is why I get my information primarily from research papers, because it is the conclusions and results that matter, not people's opinions on it.

I wholly disagree. I argue that evidence AGAINST something and evidence FOR something are not always equal. They both, however, are greater forms of evidence than evidence SUGGESTING something and evidence SUGGESTING OTHERWISE to something.

Yes, evidence for and evidence against is not always equal. You have to look at it based on the evidence itself and the amount of it. When so much evidence builds up in favor of evolution, it becomes impossible to deny. Every prediction Darwin originally made has been confirmed and he didn't even know DNA existed. Like genetic mutations, evidence accumulates and the more we have the clearer the picture becomes.

What you have with the term I meant by micro-evolution (which yes, Barcs, you don't think is a real term), or evolution within a species, is a vast amount of evidence FOR it. That's good evidence!

I didn't say it wasn't a real term, I said that the mechanisms are identical for both micro and macro, the only difference is that more time has passed. If we look at it logically, if one can observe 50 genetic mutations per generation, then you would expect in 1000 generations you'd have near 50,000 possible genetic changes. Now think of that in millions of generations and you'll see where I'm coming from here. Many people separate micro and macro evolution in order to pretend one is faith based and one is solid.

Macro evolution is merely the accumulation of thousands to millions of speciation events or micro evolutionary changes. If micro evolution is solid, then so is macro. If you don't agree, then you would need to explain how the small genetic changes would stop accumulating after a certain point or show why there is a limit to how many changes can accumulate. I've never seen anyone provide a good explanation to this point.

It's evidence SUGGESTING it. This is not equal to evidence FOR it.

Can you please explain the difference between the two and give examples? I saw your explanation edit at the bottom but still am not figuring out the difference. I'd think that directly observing a genome from generation to generation and documenting the changes would be direct evidence, as well as observing new species arise in a lab, but to each his own I suppose. How is that not direct evidence?

I get it. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of faith's involvement in science because the word faith has a negative connotation to you, and its related to religion, which atheists on ATS believe to be the evil of all evil, backward, idiotic, and below them.

Faith's involvement in science begins and ends with the development of new ideas and hypotheses. Beyond that it has no role. And even still it isn't exactly faith, it's philosophy and educated guessing based on existing theories and models. The hallmark of any scientific theory is that ideas and hypothesis are confirmed. Once confirmed, they look for explanations on how the process or phenomena in question functions by rigorously testing it.

No faith is not evil, it's just not how science is done. I see nothing wrong with faith. I have issues with folks denying science in favor of it, however, because it is illogical.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Today in history class you learn that Ancient people in Greek, Egypt, Summeria etc. all had belief system, some of them believed in Zeus and Mt. Olympus, other in afterlife and preparation for it through preservation of corpse,....

One day today's religion will become one of those things young reader will have hard time to understand - why would people believe everything was created by an angry being?! How could you believe in something without any proof while being in denial for everything we know about universe and life?!

Hard to imagine today, but time like this is coming... probably faster then some hope... still not fast enough in my opinion...

And yes, religion will be again in school books, but mostly in Historical books, as there is not much literal value in fairy tales... and most of those in religious books are not for kids anyway - rater R material...

Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

Probably because I watched too much George Carlin...




But he loves you... and he needs your money...

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why do you perceive the Christian God as angry?

Surely He is a God of love and forgiveness.

Is the great flood an example of love and forgiveness or anger and vengeance?

Did god forgive adam or did he allegedly curse the entire human race with a so called "original sin"?

Yeah drowning the entire world (including millions to billions of innocent animals) at once because an isolated pocket of humans were not following his laws, is totally showing love and forgiveness. What a nice guy.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: peter vlar

Please show me one example of evolution being repeatedly tested and confirmed? Did you even read and understand what you have posted?

Question was not for me, but let me share some examples and explain why and how...

As time is quite a problem in observing evolution, scientist use animals with short life cycle. Some examples you can find on following link:

www.decodedscience.com...

There are many examples and experiments are repeatable and true...

All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

I don't believe that anyone is contesting natural selection.

originally posted by: chr0naut
All three examples in the linked article show only the action of natural selection upon pre-existing trait variations within the population. As many have pointed out, evolution is more than that.

Think about what you just said. Pre existing traits. Where did they come from? Answer this and you'll have a better understanding of evolution. Hint, it has to do with genes changing over time, something that is undisputedly agreed upon in science and biology. If nobody is disputing natural selection, are they disputing the accumulation of genetic mutations? I sure haven't seen it.