Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

It occurs to me that seeing proof of a monkey suddenly becoming a human like Creationists like to demand of evolution would be more akin to proof of god than evolution.

trying to trick us into doing their work for them.

Fascinating how this keeps becoming a topic to bash creationists.
Evolution is a theory, and touted as nearly factual, but it is based on faulty assumptions. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism.
Fact: there is no scientific evidence that any information can be added to DNA. This alone would destroy evolution.
Fact: the human genome has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. In order for a human to evolve from primordial soup, the human genome would need more than one successful addition to the DNA each year, including replication. This is factually impossible.
Sorry folks, but you are going to have to come up with some other fantasy than evolution. Scientific fact says it is impossible.
But then, it was never about science, was it? It was about not being accountable to God.

Let's take a look at creationism:

Proving creationism:
1. Creationism predicts that all life was made fully formed, with complete and complex information stored in the DNA of each lifeform. There has not been any record of information being added to DNA, therefore organisms were made with their existing information.
2. Creationism predicts that man was created suddenly. DNA proves this to be correct, as there has not been enough time to mutate DNA to make humans. The human DNA has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. You would have to have two successful mutations per year, every year, since life began on Earth, to create humans.
3. Creationism predicts that there would be helium in rocks. Helium loss in rocks shows the Earth is in the neighborhood of 7000 years old. Any older, and there would not be any helium in rocks.
4. Creationism predicts that there would be soft tissue in dinosaur bones. There is. Soft tissue cannot exist past about 4000 years.
5. Creationism predicts that carbon 14 will be present in fossils, and that it will show that fossils do not date older than about 7000 years, adjusting for atmospheric changes following a major flood. It does, as all fossils on Earth contain Carbon 14, and none test older than an adjusted date of about 7000 years.
6. Creationism predicts that polonium halos would exist in granite if the Earth was made in one day. Scientific evidence concerning polonium halos in granite show that the halos could only form if the granite cooled in just a few minutes. www.halos.com
7. Creationism predicts that man and dinosaurs coexisted, being made within a few days of each other. Dinosaurs and man show intermixed footprints in stone at the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas and other sites on Earth.
8. Creationism predicts that there was nothing, and it was made into the Universe within 6 days. Using Einstein's E=mc^2 formula, we find that the time for the stretching forth of the Universe from Earth to 13.5 billion light years away took 20.12 hours at the speed of light times the speed of light. After this expansion began to slow below the mc^2, it transformed from light (E) into mass (m), with light stretched out in the space-time continuum between all objects.
9. Creationism predicts that the creation spread out from a centerpoint, Earth, to the rest of the Universe. Hubble confirmed that this was one of two possibilities but argued that he could not accept a favored position for Earth and chose the second possibility. However, since Hubble, we have discovered that quantized red shift puts Earth at the center of the Universe within 100 light years (the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across), which would allow for motion in the Milky Way galaxy to move our position from exact center to slightly off center.
10. Creationism predicts that red shift will show that the Universe was spread out at speeds increasing with distance. Red shift confirms that the Universe was indeed spread out at speeds increasing with distance from Earth.
11. Creationism predicts that this Universe is a special creation by God for man to inhabit Earth. Due to recent studies of the fine-tuning of the Universe, scientists now know that the chance of this Universe existing and being suitable for life for man is 1x10^140,000. Scientists explain this by stating that the infinite Universe is surrounded by more infinite universes and that we were lucky to be in ours. This scientific counterpoint can never be proven to eliminate the facts proven that support creationism.

Only creationism predicts these true results. And you wanted to kick it out of the classroom. Is that wise?

Creationism does not need to present itself as science. Science proves it. There can be no other explanation, other than the multiverse, which cannot be proven under any scientific means ever. Therefore, you want to prove multiverse, we want to prove God. We know there is at least one Universe. You do not know nor will you ever know that there is more than one Universe.
The choice facing you is: believe in a loving God who cares for you and has heaven for you after this life, or believe in a fantasy produced by science to an end that is unable to be proven or resolved. It is illogical to resort to the fantasy of a multiverse. It is illogical to assume that nothing creates everything. Ultimately, even with the theory of the multiverse, you come to the same brick wall: where did the first Universe in the Multiverse come from? You would ask where did God come from.

In order to create something as big as the Universe, you must be more powerful and bigger.
In order to create time and space, you must be outside time and space.
In order to create something from nothing, you must be outside nothing.
In order to create something that has a beginning, you must not have a beginning.

God is omnipotent, eternal, immaterial, without location in time and space. Wouldn't you agree that those are godly attributes?
So do creationists.

So, if you were blindfolded and were sent into the Multiverse to find one special marked electron, you, a non-creationist, believe that you have a chance of finding it on the first pick. You have a lot more faith, my friend, than any creationist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Creationists and religious people can quite rightly be accused of "God of the gaps" thinking. Their religious paradigm provides an explanation (of sorts) of things that science has not explained.

But that's the point; there are no scientifically and evidentially validated explanations that fill some fairly major gaps in our knowledge. It does not invalidate science, but neither is the religious view invalidated.

That is not to say that science should not try to fill those gaps but the claim that one view is wrong and another right when we have imperfect knowledge, is an opinion, not fact.

The truth is that there IS evidence, that is scientifically acceptable, that suggests a Creation (as opposed to anything currently explicable by scientifically robust mechanism/s).

I don't get the huge issue.

I can sit in churches and Bible studies forever and I'm NOT going to believe in instant-creationism.

What's so wrong with little Timmy learning evolution in school? If what you're preaching at the church/home is the truth, tell him that. If it's the real-deal, it'll stick.

"Oh no! He'll be....exposed to other ideas!"

Well, if yours are so much better and God-approved, tell your kid that. Brainwash him for all I care -- but do it at home and in your churches.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Why don't you ask the right question first Beer?
You know the right way.

Can you offer anything up that would support Biblical creationism

in accordance to the protocols of science?

Right Beer ? That's the question you should ask if you were honest?

Which brings me to the reason I won't even acknowledge the fabricating atheist.
Joker

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.

"A trained organism in a controlled environment will do what it damn well pleases".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bone75

I didn't make this thread in response to any particular news stories right now. I'm just discussing how the debate is flawed to begin with.

Just because it may not be currently taught, doesn't mean that people aren't trying to change that. Plus it IS being taught as science in some private schools, and that is part of my point. It isn't science, even if you have every legal right to call it that as you teach it.

How would one teach it as science?

a reply to: Jim Scott



This copy paste post was addressed here.
Creationism makes zero predictions and has zero explanatory power. This is why there is virtually no work being done to support creationism in the positive, because it doesn't make useful predictions or provide any useful explanations and there is no model than can be tested.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

Alright, go tell the politicians in DC that I'm in charge now.

On second thought, that might be a hell of an impovement.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

call it what you like, but the Creationist Science--especially all the interesting data that contemporary science leaves out, should be taught if it is true data and reproducible. Fossils of whales running through layers of sediment we are told are millions of years different in age: I want to know. WW2 Bombers found in 150 METERS of ice in Greenland, implying the ice shelfs may not be that old…each layer was found to be a snowstorm, not a year.

on and on: why so much data left out?


youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...

yt: Young Earth - Young Universe
youtu.be...

yt: Scientific Evidence for God - Dr. Strauss
youtu.be...
physics professor at the University of Oklahoma who often spends his time studying smashed subatomic particles at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN laboratory in Switzerland

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: borntowatch
1 question, has evolution got all the answers, do all the scientists on earth agree that its all now rock solid and without issue?

No, that's why it's a scientific THEORY, not a Scientific LAW.

The issue you're having with this concept is that you equate Evolution and The Theory Of Evolution as the same thing, which it is not.

Evolution is the natural phenomena we see that exists within life as we know it, and through their successive reproduction. Our Theory OF Evolution is our attempt at explaining how the Naturally Occurring Phenomena of Evolution functions. It is why people say Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Just like we know that Gravity is a naturally occurring phenomena, and we have theories about how gravity functions. Thus, Gravity is both a fact and a theory.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Evolutionists need to get there house in order before running around dictating how others should act.

I haven't ever witnessed an "evolutionist" dictating how others should act. Could you source your claims please?

originally posted by: borntowatch
Post the evidence

Be more specific. The theory of evolution is one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of science. If you have a specific concern, I'd be more than willing to provide all the evidence and peer-reviewed information you need

You sound quite Creationist, referring to the "Theory of Evolution".

There is a UK law banning the teaching of Creation as science, it applies even in a Religious Education class. The law made specific reference to the teaching of evolution, the implication being that those who framed the law saw evolution and creation as being in opposition to each other. The law was favourable to the teaching of evolution. Would that not qualify as evolutionists dictating the way someone else should act?

a reply to: notmyrealname

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".

Gospel of Thomas....
"If they ask you, What is the evidence of your Father in you? say to them, It is motion and rest."

Who knows, if string theory is correct perhaps in another 2000 years science might catch up to religion

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really don't understand what it is you are asking for. We already don't teach religion in science classes, are you also suggesting that we eliminate the possibility of a creator as well.... just because?

In Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana they are!

When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth.
These are all lies.

www.slate.com...

My tax dollars hard at work brainwashing other peoples kids.. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

originally posted by: Barcs
Good thread. Yes, this reminds me of the thread started a week or 2 ago about the UK law that cuts funding for schools that teach faith as science. It's funny that nobody is complaining about the law except a select group of fundamentalist Christians in the US. They will argue all kinds of things, but beat around the bush and will not directly acknowledge or accept the fact that faith is not science or fact. Since it is not science or fact, it should not be taught in science class or as an alternative to science. If anybody disagrees they are welcome to present the scientific evidence for creation. Unfortunately none exists and creationists really dislike that fact so they make all kinds of appeals and fallacies to support their view instead of direct objective evidence, like the rest of science.

99% of these fundamentalist Christians would be outraged if another religion was taught as science (ie Islam, Hinduism), yet hypocritically advocate for theirs to be taught as an alternative to science just because they have strong faith. They would also be outraged if science was taught in religious classes as an alternative to religion. They just believe their view is true, and have zero empathy so they can't understand how anybody could NOT believe in an ancient story book. They feel like if they believe it, it has to be true and the ego propels them to fight for it, tooth and nail. Too bad there isn't even a fight or debate in regards to evolution. You can't win a race if you don't have a horse in it and right now the creationists are acting like they have already won the race without even entering it. They are fighting an unsubstantiated war and attacking people who don't share their worldview. This is bad. Jesus taught empathy. It's about time Christians start acting like it. I just don't see why the hardest core Christians blatantly ignore what Jesus taught when they believe a literal version of genesis. It makes no sense to me at all.

I contributed to that thread, am not American, and am an unorthodox (unfundamental) Christian.

The science class is often where these big picture questions show up, regardless of legislation or religious views.

I would suggest that Morphic Resonance and the Gaia Hypothesis be taught alongside other paradigms to students who had questions. Limiting subject matter is NOT what balanced and broad education is about.

Similarly, when Hindu concepts were mentioned in the Carl Sagan television documentary "Cosmos", I thought it entirely appropriate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

I didn't notice it, but I did now. Lol

That poster is wrong. He is framing the argument like a debate actually exists. The only people who believe a debate even exists are the Creationists who have created the debate out of thin air. Like I said in the OP, you can't call it science if you can't even present a unified idea of what it says among all its proponents. After all, how can you teach a standardized version of it for all parties then?

So, you're taking part in a debate that doesn't exist?

Sorry, I'm confused?

a reply to: glend

Gospel of Notmyrealname:

Come tell me I am wrong in 2000 years.

a reply to: chr0naut

No more so than recalling a toy because it contains harmful amounts of a manufacturing chemical.

So 'creationism' shouldn't be taught in 'science' class ?

Just when it comes to 'religion'.

Global warming is A-OK.

That is the EPITOME of creationism with a cult following.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Simple answer why the two are mutually exclusive:

Conservation of Energy

-vs-

'poof' there it is...

Please explain how one could hold to the conservation of energy (and other thermodynamic laws) and to the inflation of the universe after the Big Bang?

Creationism is taught in SCIENCE CLASS in the U.S.?!

Well, no wonder the nation in the state it's in...