Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

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??

What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true

We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.

Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.

Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.

More so that I am not aware of the shortcomings of evidence in evolution. Especially considering when it's one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of the scientific fields.

Of course, if you're willing to provide me with some claims that you may possess about Evolution that can allow me to view these shortcomings, I'd be very excited to see them!

Here's a classic one.

Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species.[51] Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space. Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.

They have already answered this: phys.org... (a basic rundown of the study)

and here's the link to the actual scientific paper as well: www.cell.com

As the scientific paper clearly states this "POTENTIALLY" explains Darwins dilemma. Are you really trying to pass this off as conclusive proof?

Perhaps you weren't reading all everyone else's other posts where we clearly state Science is NEVER 100% conclusive. It is merely the best explanation for what we currently have with the evidence we currently have.

Science deals with probability, not absolutes.

What was once a completely unsolvable problem, is now a likely conception as to how Darwin's Dilemma is no longer a dilemma at all. You're entering this conversation with the preconceived, and misinformed notion that Science deals with Truth and Absolutes. Until you can get over your own misconceptions, you will never be able to understand what is being presented to you.

originally posted by: The GUT
So I was looking for some rather surprising quotes that most evolutionists know nothing about and come from some of their greatest academic minds. I'll find those. In the meantime, I ran across these and thought I'd let y'all pick 'em apart---I haven't vetted them. Evolution and Creationism are both faith-based belief systems and there's no way around that.

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

Your first quote comes from a guy who was also a proponent of the Geocentric Model in which the Sun, all the other planets, the galaxies and the entire universe...revolves around the Earth.

The second quote is nearly 60 years old. One would have to be willfully ignorant or incredibly naïve to truly believe that science hasn't progressed well beyond what was known about evolutionary history in 1957

For your third quote, you only looked for quotes that specifically suited your purpose in a fit of unadulterated confirmation bias. Had you read the entire quote, perhaps you would have an entirely different context here-

"The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets

If Ehrlich and Birch think that the theory of evolution as a whole is untestable, why do they say, in the very next sentence, that evolutionary theory should not be scrapped? The answer is that they do not regard the theory of evolution as a whole to be untestable, as even a cursory reading of the article shows. At the beginning of Ehrlich and Birch's article, offset and in boldface, is a good precis:

While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more skeptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions. [p. 349]

These two biologists are not at all dissatisfied with the theory of evolution as such.


And your 4th quote is entirely laughable because we have found a multitude of fossils since Darwin first published.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I'm asking what evidence it has to support it, period.

Is there anything besides the Bible?

I strongly doubt that the bible is proof of much at all.

My point is as it has always been.

I wasn't there. You weren't there. It is just as impossible to prove the variation of that we witness at all levels of biological organization are the result of creation by an intelligent being as it to prove it by evolution, speciation, genetic drift or whatever. At best evolution may show small genetic changes from species to species. This is the lowest and most specific categorization of biological organism where things are as genetically similar as possible.

What about the rest of the biological categorization tree?

Just for clarification.

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: SuperFrog

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??

What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true

We have addressed your misconception about this a number of times. Perhaps you should actually read the comments that reply to you?

Science is never about absolute truth. It is merely our tool in which we apply to help understand and explain how a naturally occurring phenomenon functions. Science is solely about probability, it is never going to be 100% correct

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: JadeStar
when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.

Absolutely correct! give the man a star! (don't actually, it was only an accident that he came to this conclusion.

Again, science helps explain to the best of our current knowledge, how a phenomenon functions. If evidence arises that shows our previous explanation was incorrect, then it will change to make a more accurate description.

Excellent! You completely understand and yet your completely unable or unwilling to a recognize the fact that same short comings are evident in both evolution and creationism.

More so that I am not aware of the shortcomings of evidence in evolution. Especially considering when it's one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of the scientific fields.

Of course, if you're willing to provide me with some claims that you may possess about Evolution that can allow me to view these shortcomings, I'd be very excited to see them!

Here's a classic one.

Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist? In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species.[51] Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space. Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed", and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.

They have already answered this: phys.org... (a basic rundown of the study)

and here's the link to the actual scientific paper as well: www.cell.com

As the scientific paper clearly states this "POTENTIALLY" explains Darwins dilemma. Are you really trying to pass this off as conclusive proof?

Perhaps you weren't reading all everyone else's other posts where we clearly state Science is NEVER 100% conclusive. It is merely the best explanation for what we currently have with the evidence we currently have.

Science deals with probability, not absolutes.

What was once a completely unsolvable problem, is now a likely conception as to how Darwin's Dilemma is no longer a dilemma at all. You're entering this conversation with the preconceived, and misinformed notion that Science deals with Truth and Absolutes. Until you can get over your own misconceptions, you will never be able to understand what is being presented to you.

Oh yes... Another unproven theory passed off as scientific fact.

Congratulations.

Unproven theories passed of as fact sounds just like creationism to me.

However that's not the real issue here is it? You've often referred to me changing definitions and moving goals. Out of the two of us I'm not the one desperately trying to rewrite darwins theory of evolution. I took Biology in high school and I have very clear and distinct memories of darwins theory of evolution.

Do you actually believe that everyone has forgotten that the full title of the book darwin wrote was:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

And yet I'm supposed to believe darwins fathers beliefs in eugenics and complete disdain for christianity in no way influenced darwins work?

Evolution has never been a theory on "SIMPLY" explaining the seperation of the species.

Evolution was always.

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

[SNIP]

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.

And the problem is?? Of course it changes as our understanding gets better and new more accurate theory are introduced, but why is that a problem?? It is rare that something is proven completely wrong, but rather new theory extends on preexisting theory.

For example Newton law of universal gravitation is superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69I also know that more and more often scientific theory and religious theory are starting to align.

Sure, care to share examples?? Because more we know, farther we are from religious folklore...

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Science and spirituality can and should coexist in agreement with each other.

Not really.... As soon as religion first time tried to explain natural occurrence of something without facts it moved away from science... and science it was created by human it was used for different purpose - not to explain but to control and have final saying over things that proposed without much facts. We have many examples of that through history from lost knowledge due to religion... there is a topic on this matter here on ATS. Search for it...

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Neither creation nor evolution are correct in their theology and to believe that one of the other is, is narrow minded and silly. No absolute proof exists to support either theory.

Actually ToE has enough proof for us to acknowledge it is being correct. It has nothing to do with belief - but simple genetics, historical evidence and facts learned through experiment. All of those are missing in religion and only reason we are having this discussion is because close minded people that compiled fairy tales into religion instructions could not even comprehend what people would know hundred years later. Just simple example of 2 lights in sky where we have billions upon billions (all stars) and 2 proposed by religious book are actually wrong as one is actually reflection of light - not source.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
The latest theory from the quantum physics camp is that reality could be an elaborate hologram. What happens to your argument if that should show itself to be credible? So much of our 'science' is based upon unprovable assumptions just like creationism. If you don't understand how or why this happens then you aren't asking yourself the correct questions.

This is not latest theory from quantum physics, but rather mistranslation of some of something they don't have full understanding off. If something is not proven yet - it is not theory but rather hypothesis. By now, we should know that much as its repeated through this and similar threads.

If you ask yourself correct questions, we would not have this discussion at all... we would agree that people who wrote book that you follow just did not know better at the time and does not include any science. Father George Coyle calls this religious fundamentalism plague... here is why...

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really don't have the time to convince people that I am correct. What I say will either resonate with a person or it won't. If the individual really wants to know the facts of my point of view it is far more beneficial for them to do futher research themselves and ask themselves the important questions.

Translation: "I came in here to loudly proclaim my falsehoods, don't feel like backing them up, and anyone with a confirmation bias will agree with me."

I did read read the material that you provided. What I did not see was any proof that any one of the animals that Darwin refers to evolved from something else. Only the fact that it was different. Lots of things are different. Where is the proof of evolution? I see no new genetic material here. Only the refining of existing genetic material through natural selection.

Yea... I can't help you if you refuse to open your eyes.

a reply to: The GUT

No one cares about quote mines in a debate about evolution. It's about the evidence if it exists or not.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Oh yes... Another unproven theory passed off as scientific fact.

Congratulations.

Unproven theories passed of as fact sounds just like creationism to me.

Care to point at what makes you expert in the field?

If all scientist agree that fossils are good source of evidence for evolution, why do you doubt that and what do you make of all that evidence in fossils?!

I really like to hear how do you explain huge amount of evidence...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: The GUT

No one cares about quote mines in a debate about evolution. It's about the evidence if it exists or not.

Really? When I firstI started seeing the holes in the theory it was hard to shake the blinders of other blinded folk like you. That herd-mind and bullying are tough, but it's a necessary rumble if one wants intellectual independence.

So having my own building questions about what was being "taught" (and ignored!) about evolution I did what I always do and began studying both sides of the argument for and against.

I know from experience why you don't like the quotes from some of these great minds: They get to the point quickly and reveal that you are practicing a shaky "religion" and passing it off as fact. They cause cognitive dissonance because somewhere deep inside, you realize that, yes, you are a man or woman of faith after all.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Barcs

Once again I shall take the time to explain that it is impossible to separate the scientist from the science. It is a basic Quantum Mechanics principle so I can understand if your not familiar with it. The same applies here it is impossible to separate Darwin from evolutionary theory.

Darwin came up with the theory, but the theory itself has evolved tremendously since then, so to define it strictly by what Darwin knew in the late 1800s is wrong, just like misusing the concept of scientific theory as you do again below.

The Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is still as stated quite clearly a 'theory'. Once this theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly using the scientific process achieving consistent results this will then become an accepted truth. Given that it is currently and possibly always will be completely impossible to practically test evolutionary theory than I guess it will always remain theory.

I'm sorry but you just repeated your original false argument. I told you to look up the definition of scientific theory and you ignored it.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So yeah, it's just a scientific theory. There's no such thing as "an accepted truth" in science. Theories are explanations of facts. To claim it's just a theory and hasn't been tested is a blatant lie because it contradicts what is meant by scientific theory. Theories don't become laws when proven. Theories don't become accepted truth when proven. They BECOME theories when proven. Prior to that they are hypotheses. I thought I just explained this in my response to you.

I'm assuming at this point that you understand the difference between evolution an natural selection?

The difference? Natural selection is PART of evolution; a big part.

Scientific fact once told us that the world was flat however I'm supposed to believe that evolution is infallible?

Did I call that or what?

Wrong again. Science NEVER told us that. Flat earth wasn't even believed by a large amount of people on earth at the time. It was a religious standpoint, not a scientific one. There weren't science experiments to test flat earth, therefor it wasn't science. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Evolution a just a theory to try and explain a pointless argument about where we came from and debunk creationism.

Creationism debunks itself with the young earth nonsense. There is no objective evidence whatsoever for creation. There is mountains of evidence for evolution. It wasn't just made up to debunk religion.

If you want a source for that open your mind and do some objective research into creationism.

How is telling me to open my mind and do objective research on creation, a source? Please give me your unbiased objective source, not the same ol' "you are too closed minded to see it" crap.

You and I are both smart enough to know that no matter how much we argue about it we are not going to change each others mind so please stop wasting my time.

Then why did you come into the topic? Why did you post false claims about science and evolution? I'm here to deny ignorance and what you posted about science was pure ignorance of how it works.

There is no absolute proof to support evolution or creationism and why do we all have to be so narrow minded and naive as to believe that these are the only two options... Or that in fact our origins may actually be a culmination of facts and ideas coming many differing theories and philosophies.

I posted the link to the evidence which you conveniently ignored. This is no surprise, dishonest creationists do it all the time. For once, I'd like a creationist that can respond to counterpoints and give sources when asked instead of just parroting all kinds of nonsense as if it were true just to preserve your faith in your religion.

Evolution vs creation is a false dilemma. There is no debate. One is faith based, one is fact based and they certainly aren't mutually exlcusive. Both could be true. The debate should really be abiogenesis vs creation. Evolution stands on its own and provides a good substantially backed explanation of how life changes over time. If you want to debate origin of life you are barking up the wrong tree by attacking evolution.

History isn't science... However science based on a disputed history becomes fact? How do you know god didn't create us? Were you there? How do you know that anything ever evolved into something else? were you there?

I don't claim to know whether god created the universe or not. But seriously, the "you weren't there so you don't know" argument? How childish. Were you there? Scientific knowledge can teach us about the past, whether we witnessed it firsthand or not. For example the impact event that killed off the dinosaurs. No, we didn't witness it firsthand, but we know it happened because we have found the crater, analyzed the debris, dated the surrounding rocks, etc. Like i mentioned, evolution has been done in a lab, the link I posted referred to it. Clearly you didn't read the link.

You ask for facts and evidence where there are none. Their is no absolute truth to prove creationism or evolution.

You are the one claiming evolution is a religion. I gave you a link with 29 separate pieces of evidence for macro evolution and you completely ignored it and just kept repeating the same nonsense that had already been debunked by folks in the thread. You can't debunk evolution without debunking the actual evidence. Like I said, you'll be the first creationist in the history of this site to address the actual evidence instead of relying on strawman definitions of evolution and fallacies.

What I know is that science is commonly assumed to be absolutely true when in fact scientific theories come and go as our understanding changes.

The ignorance continues. Can you please name me a official scientific theory that just up and went? No, I'm not saying false beliefs, I'm saying scientific theories backed by research papers and peer review. Name a single one that has been wrong. Theories don't come and go in science, hypotheses do.

So in fact evolutionary theory is as fallible as creation theory and as a result holds no more credibility as a theory then the the perceived facts and correctness of the interpretation of the data that you attribute to it. So there is no real reason that evolution should be taught in schools and creation not.

Complete hogwash. Look pal, the link and evidence has been posted. If you wish to keep parroting the same false claims over and over demonstrating your ignorance of science, at least address the evidence. The ball is clearly in your court here. Either address the evidence or find another thread to preach in.

However both are still far from explaining how complex life forms emerged from a primordial ooze.

LMAO. Evolution has nothing to do with primordial ooze, despite your broad generalization. Are you ever going to provide facts?

originally posted by: The GUT
Really? When I firstI started seeing the holes in the theory it was hard to shake the blinders of other blinded folk like you. That herd-mind and bullying are tough, but it's a necessary rumble if one wants intellectual independence.

Yea sure whatever. None of that makes my statement any less true. Quote mines are irrelevant to prove or disprove evolution.

So having my own building questions about what was being "taught" (and ignored!) about evolution I did what I always do and began studying both sides of the argument for and against.

Yea, I really doubt that you studied both sides of the argument if your goto way of disproving it is with quote mines.

I know from experience why you don't like the quotes from some of these great minds: They get to the point quickly and reveal that you are practicing a shaky "religion" and passing it off as fact. They cause cognitive dissonance because somewhere deep inside, you realize that, yes, you are a man or woman of faith after all.

From experience? We've spoken before? Oh well, irrelevant. You are wrong in any case. I don't like quote mines because they aren't evidence of anything. I don't like quote mines because they are USUALLY from Creationists taking famous people's words out of context so they appear to say something entirely different than what was actually said. And again I mostly don't like them because they aren't evidence.

If you want to prove or disprove evolution, then you need to stick to the ACTUAL evidence for or against the theory, not what some guy THINKS about the theory. That is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Just wanted to take a moment to respond to the thread that was created in support of creationism being taught in class and the horrid reasoning used by Borntowatch:

The subject is: Why creationism should be taught in science class:

Why not? Simply because its an alternate belief based on God
Why? Simply because so many people believe in it.

Your very first point starts with a fallacy. The appeal to popularity. More people believing something doesn't make it factually accurate.

Some would say Psychology isnt a science so should it be pulled from every curriculum
Some would say that the earth is flat, should we deny that some believe it, not teach what others believe and why, show all the evidence for both sides and allow the students to make a decision.

"Some would say" isn't an indication of truth. It's okay to teach what people believe, just not in a science class or as an alternative to science, since personal beliefs do not follow the scientific method.

The reality is education facilities should teach everyone what is out there and reveal the evidence and allow people to make up their own mind.

Can you name a single verified fact of creationism? There is no evidence, so it's not science. It's not even a choice. You don't have to believe one or the other. You can believe both or even neither.

Imagine how evil a school would be if it only taught creation, how evil must an evolution only school be.

Last I checked, there aren't any evolution only schools. There are schools that teach science in science class and there are schools that teach religion in science class and should be shut down since it isn't science. If you can't make the case for creationism to be science, then it has no place in science class. That's the bottom line.

Schools are to provide knowledge, explaining creation provides knowledge, if evolutionists are so cocksure of their case, why are they so terrified of creation.

Explaining creation does not provide knowledge. It provides somebody's personal worldview. Nobody is scared of creation, they just know that there is zero objective evidence, so it doesn't count as science.

Schools are to provide knowledge, supported by evidence, evidence that leads to decision based on knowledge.

Then give us the evidence for creationism. Where are the models? Where is the theory? Why is there nothing whatsoever in the scientific academia in relation to it?

Imagine in a political class I taught kids the rosy parts of communism, just the good, I would end up with some swayed to communism, say a democracy, I would sway some minds to how good a democracy is.
Maybe Libertarianism, but didnt teach it would become like the US, he with the most money and most popular wins, the people s opinion becomes irrelevant
Teach both sides, the pros and cons and allow the individual to decide for themselves

Science isn't politics. Science is based on the scientific method. If you can't verify creationism via the scientific method then it has no place in science class. End of story. The 2 concepts are not on equal footing. One has evidence, one does not.

a reply to: Barcs

thread in question:

Why Creationism Should be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: Barcs
Just wanted to take a moment to respond to the thread that was created in support of creationism being taught in class and the horrid reasoning used by Borntowatch:

The subject is: Why creationism should be taught in science class:

Why not? Simply because its an alternate belief based on God
Why? Simply because so many people believe in it.

Your very first point starts with a fallacy. The appeal to popularity. More people believing something doesn't make it factually accurate.

Some would say Psychology isnt a science so should it be pulled from every curriculum
Some would say that the earth is flat, should we deny that some believe it, not teach what others believe and why, show all the evidence for both sides and allow the students to make a decision.

"Some would say" isn't an indication of truth. It's okay to teach what people believe, just not in a science class or as an alternative to science, since personal beliefs do not follow the scientific method.

The reality is education facilities should teach everyone what is out there and reveal the evidence and allow people to make up their own mind.

Can you name a single verified fact of creationism? There is no evidence, so it's not science. It's not even a choice. You don't have to believe one or the other. You can believe both or even neither.

Imagine how evil a school would be if it only taught creation, how evil must an evolution only school be.

Last I checked, there aren't any evolution only schools. There are schools that teach science in science class and there are schools that teach religion in science class and should be shut down since it isn't science. If you can't make the case for creationism to be science, then it has no place in science class. That's the bottom line.

Schools are to provide knowledge, explaining creation provides knowledge, if evolutionists are so cocksure of their case, why are they so terrified of creation.

Explaining creation does not provide knowledge. It provides somebody's personal worldview. Nobody is scared of creation, they just know that there is zero objective evidence, so it doesn't count as science.

Schools are to provide knowledge, supported by evidence, evidence that leads to decision based on knowledge.

Then give us the evidence for creationism. Where are the models? Where is the theory? Why is there nothing whatsoever in the scientific academia in relation to it?

Imagine in a political class I taught kids the rosy parts of communism, just the good, I would end up with some swayed to communism, say a democracy, I would sway some minds to how good a democracy is.
Maybe Libertarianism, but didnt teach it would become like the US, he with the most money and most popular wins, the people s opinion becomes irrelevant
Teach both sides, the pros and cons and allow the individual to decide for themselves

Science isn't politics. Science is based on the scientific method. If you can't verify creationism via the scientific method then it has no place in science class. End of story. The 2 concepts are not on equal footing. One has evidence, one does not.

There there its ok, dont have kittens

What you say about creation me and many others say about evolution
I am sure in the middle east in some devoutly religious country's evolution as a faith is outlawed....maybe, could be.

Because so many believe in creation and evolution is faith based in those countries that's ok that evolution is not taught, thats your logic, thats your logic, pretty dumb ain't it

I hate fundamentalism, like yours.
Intelligent design is a serious question and if you read the forums around here you will see it asked regularly. Aliens did it, hell even dawkins likes the alien idea with evolution mixed in.
Personal world views should be challenged, science is a science to challenge personal world views, personal worldviews drive science.
You make science out to be holier and evolution out to be your god, unchallenged by personal world views. Thats ludicrous, its explaining personal worldviews that drives science, not science for the sake of science.
Ludicrous, you place science on a pedestal and are scared of challenge, science is no a coward, its information, science doesnt hide or need your protection, it is what it is.
You dont understand or know what science is.

Dawkins believes in intelligent design and evolution, according to his own words.

Now off you go and compile some repeatable Testable
and observable science to back up your faith in evolution,
I am not afraid of science, I dont cower or need to protect it, you do. I want the information from it, so bring it out
I dont think the average evolutionist arguing here understands science, you have no evidence, just a zealous religious faith.

See there, I am using my personal world view to challenge your religion or faith, whatever.
Now we leave it to science and the evidence produced to get an answer.


religious evolution Fundamentalists, getting sick of them

a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: peter vlar
The second quote is nearly 60 years old. One would have to be willfully ignorant or incredibly naïve to truly believe that science hasn't progressed well beyond what was known about evolutionary history in 1957

Agreed, yet here we are more than 70 years after the MES was established and people still cling to it as the hallmark of evolutionary theory. It's outdated, and largely inadequate at explaining how organisms actually evolve. Even in the face of what the research has bared out over the last decade, people still think that mutations and natural selection are all that is needed. And this is what is being taught in our classroom? Talk about willfully ignorant and incredibly naïve.

a reply to: borntowatch

Geez man. I told you before, I'm not saying that intelligent design is wrong or that your religion is wrong. I'm just saying it's not science. You are right, tons of people ask questions about intelligent design. It's a great philosophical question. The problem is that none of them are actively using the scientific method to get us closer to the answer. What experiments are actively being done? To discover something you need to do more than just talk about it. If god exists, it will be the real scientists that discover and prove it, not the armchair creationist "scientists".

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Agreed, yet here we are more than 70 years after the MES was established and people still cling to it as the hallmark of evolutionary theory. It's outdated, and largely inadequate at explaining how organisms actually evolve.

Please explain how a theory is outdated when we are constantly learning new things and adding that knowledge where and when applicable. What specifically is outdated about it? What alternative do you propose?

Even in the face of what the research has bared out over the last decade, people still think that mutations and natural selection are all that is needed.

Who exactly are these people? Mutations and natural selection are only 2 of several forces that act on evolution. Genetic Drift and Punctuated Equilibrium are two more. Unless you had something more specific in mind?

And this is what is being taught in our classroom? Talk about willfully ignorant and incredibly naïve.

The only willful ignorance is in making judgments as seen above because none of your charges are true. Or can you demonstrate and cite something that works better?

why not teach both

originally posted by: Artbellfan
why not teach both

Read pages 1-18 of this thread

This thread is simply promoting atheistic naturalism. It is not promoting a view where you follow the truth of science wherever it leads. Back on page 6 I proved, without a shadow of a doubt, with hard science, that creationism is correct. It was completely ignored. Then the thread went on to bash the Bible. As if. The Bible is the best ancient scripture we have today...and the most verified. Heck, when the King James translators (who were incredible experts) began their work, they had access to 5,000 copies to cross verify the text. That allowed them to get to the original autographs. I have no idea why you can't see this, but the Bible says you won't. To me, it's surreal. I can put gobs of truth on the table, and it gets completely ingnored. I guess that's why the Bible said, in the last days, people would be willfully ignorant, professing themselves to be wise (but not), and believing in uniformitarianism. It says you would deny creation, deny the flood of Noah. Man, it was correct. I can't believe I am living in these end times, watching this play out around me while the truth from hard science is completely ignored.