Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Barcs

You are right--faith is not fact. My position is that the basics of creationism could be presented to students, and allow a discussion of the truths of the known(evolution), and the suppositions of the other. "You guys" is a label you affixed to my post, as if I fully endorse creationism over evolution. The backlash over my post underlines the lack of objectivity and lack of faith in young minds to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Please list the basics of Creationism that are agreed upon first by all Christians then second by all religions so that we can get an idea of how to develop this supposed curriculum.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Barcs
You are right--faith is not fact. My position is that the basics of creationism could be presented to students, and allow a discussion of the truths of the known(evolution), and the suppositions of the other.

If you want to talk about the inner workings of Theological viewpoints, then by all means do so, even in a public school. However, it belongs in a Religion Studies class, not in a science class.

And no, it shouldn't be discussed alongside Evolution because Evolution is an actual, naturally occurring phenomenon, and our Theory of Evolution is a scientific topic, not a religious one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ghost147

You should make a thread on this, it appears we could have a deep conversation. In this thread it is only tangentially linked to the topic at hand though.

I agree, I don't want to derail the OP any further

a reply to: Krazysh0t

At the end of Epperson v Arkansas, the SC suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.

"Creationism cannot be presented as science"--where did I ever state this to be the case? Regardless of the interpretation, basic tenets of creationism can be presented in a discussion of evolution.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Krazysh0t

At the end of Epperson v Arkansas, the SC suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.

"Creationism cannot be presented as science"--where did I ever state this to be the case? Regardless of the interpretation, basic tenets of creationism can be presented in a discussion of evolution.

Uh... Did you read the OP? That is the whole point of it, Creationists attempting to present Creationism as science. Why are you trying to frame a different argument than what the OP established? That is called a strawman fallacy.

Also, I clearly showed what the ruling of that SC court case said. It clearly said the exact OPPOSITE of what you are saying; that evolution and creationism cannot be taught side-by-side. There IS mention of teaching alternatives to evolution in the other ruling alongside of it provided they are presented in a secular manner, but that cannot be done with creationism so it doesn't hold up. In fact, it can't be done with anything because there ISN'T a competing theory with evolution. There is just THAT much evidence in favor of it that no scientist can think of an alternative idea.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Krazysh0t
"Creationism cannot be presented as science"--where did I ever state this to be the case? Regardless of the interpretation, basic tenets of creationism can be presented in a discussion of evolution.

In a discussion, absolutely! But, not in a science class. That is the main issue. Clearly you agree that Creationism isn't science, so you must understand how inappropriate it would be to include it in a science-based field?

Here's your Psychology topic KrazySh0t

Psychology is or is not a science

a reply to: Ghost147

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.(humansarefree.com/2013/12/9/-scientific-facts-prove-theory-of.-html)

David Grey: "Free the facts"

Debate.org: Has evolution been scientifically proven?

These articles offer a different viewpoint, adding fuel to the debate.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Ghost147

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

I never suggested that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific law. However, we know for a fact that all living beings evolve through reproduction with variation.

I stated before in the thread that Evolution is both a Fact and a Theory. Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Our Theory OF Evolution is our attempt at explaining how it works. Just like Gravity is a fact, and we have a theory of gravity that explains how that naturally occurring phenomenon work.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Ghost147
Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.(humansarefree.com/2013/12/9/-scientific-facts-prove-theory-of.-html)

your link doesn't work.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Ghost147

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

No one said it was a law. Scientific laws tend to have mathematical formulas attached to them and thus described mechanical attributes of the universe. Scientific theories describe how these laws work together to form the processes that makeup our universe. One we can test over and over mathematically, the other we can only work on by finding evidence that better explains it.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

Well it's a good thing that it is a theory then.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.(humansarefree.com/2013/12/9/-scientific-facts-prove-theory-of.-html)

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law because scientific theories don't ever become scientific laws. It just doesn't happen. Also, before you go there, the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity describe two separate ideas (linked to Gravity of course).

Also, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you know what the difference between a scientific theory and the layman definition of theory is.

David Grey: "Free the facts"

Debate.org: Has evolution been scientifically proven?

These articles offer a different viewpoint, adding fuel to the debate.

What debate? You still haven't established that Creationism is a valid scientific alternative to Evolution. Heck, even if you COULD do that, they still don't match up because Evolution starts with the premise that life (and the universe) already existed while Creationism is about the creation of the universe.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Barcs

You are right--faith is not fact. My position is that the basics of creationism could be presented to students, and allow a discussion of the truths of the known(evolution), and the suppositions of the other. "You guys" is a label you affixed to my post, as if I fully endorse creationism over evolution. The backlash over my post underlines the lack of objectivity and lack of faith in young minds to separate the wheat from the chaff.

By "you guys", I meant folks that endorse creationism to be taught in science class. Sorry for not being clear, that sounded like your position.

But again, science isn't about offering alternative views that have no evidence behind them. If you advocate for creationism to be taught in science class, surely you'd advocate for hollow earth being taught when they are talking about Isaac Newton and gravity, right? 'Present both sides and let the students decide', isn't how school works, especially when talking scientific discovery and knowledge. Otherwise we'd have to fill science class, with half science and half opinions about every single subject they teach and they'd learn nothing. It would be like teaching them science is unreliable and personal opinions hold just as much weight, which is dangerous and completely wrong.

And no, Scientific theories don't become laws when proven. Laws are completely different, they deal with measurements and calculations that always hold true. Scientific theories are well substantiated evidence based explanations for facts. Evolution as a biological process is an undisputed fact. The theory of modern synthesis explains how that process works. Gravity has both a theory and a law. Theories aren't just made up ideas that may or may not be wrong. You are thinking of hypotheses.

This is why folks that don't understand scientific terminology should have zero input on what can be taught as science. If you think evolution is not science, then you pretty much gave up the argument because hundreds of peer reviewed research papers back it. Dozens of experiments back it as well. Where is this backing for creationism to make it worthy of being taught in science class as an alternative to evolution (should really be alternative to abiogenesis, but I'm guess you don't know the difference on that either)?

a reply to: Ghost147

I have previously ceded that creationism cannot be viewed as science, but reiterate my opinion that it has value in the discussion of evolution. Nye vs Ham debate covers the majority of salient issues in this discussion, and I found it informative.

Didn't realize my posts would result in a @%#$storm, just MY opinion on all inputs on a specific subject matter. Also, it was not my intent to derail this thread.

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I don't think you are derailing the OP, I think you're just viewing the situation incorrectly.

You continue to say that Creation has value in the discussion of Evolution. Could you elaborate? Do you mean in school, or outside of school, or in science class, or in general?

a reply to: Ghost147

Looking back at my original post, I wished I would have worded my position differently. Whatever the subject matter, differing views/opinions/facts should be presented as a learning experience. When speaking of Pythagoras, would one not include the medieval Christians notion of the myth of the flat earth? It is my opinion that full understanding of any subject should include diverse input, to get a better understanding of the whole.

My children attended a private HS, where both creation and evolution were taught, with raging discussions on both sides were encouraged. Many a lively debate occurred at the dinner table, and though anecdotal, my kids learned alot from what was presented. I understand the position that creationism is faith based, lacking in scientific proven theory, but as I said earlier, my opinion is it has a place in the discussion of evolution. Did I clear things up Ghost?

a reply to: Barcs

"This is why folks that don't understand scientific terminology should have zero input on what can be taught as science. If you think evolution is not science, then you pretty much gave up the argument because hundreds of peer reviewed research papers back it. Dozens of experiments back it as well. Where is this backing for creationism to make it worthy of being taught in science class as an alternative to evolution (should really be alternative to abiogenesis, but I'm guess you don't know the difference on that either)?"

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.

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can see where your coming from... However evolution isn't exactly science either is it. Neither should be taught in schools!

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?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Simple answer why the two are mutually exclusive:

Conservation of Energy

-vs-

'poof' there it is...

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.

If what you have stated as the ultimate goal of both is correct, take a science book from 2,000 years ago and compare it to it's modern version and then do the same thing with a religious book. Let me know which has evolved more in "truth".