Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

a reply to: SRPrime

that is just an opinion based on hate

you have very much evidence of God but you do not know what it is.

if the best conclusion one can come up with is there is no evidence you have found then perhaps the fault is yours and not Gods but you will likely continue to discriminate based on hate for lifes ups and downs.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Please state evidence sporting God that is not anecdotal or faith-based.

And I'm not saying this as a devout atheist, because I'm not. Rather, I'm more of an agnostic, or maybe simply someone who sees no good evidence for God, but someone who can't discount the possibility of God, either.

So I ask, what evidence?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

it is faith based indeed

it requires faith to begin to understand the things i have said

i assure you that if you genuinely seek answers then it is simply a matter of asking god to begin to show you. if at that point you keep an open heart then you will be shown

be careful of what you ask for though cause if you ask sincerely and you have obstacles in the way then they will be removed so you can see and often the loss of such can cause us great pain in our lives

a reply to: deadlyhope

The bible limits the brain. A believer is conditioned to think in a bubble with decisions based on what you think God would prefer. Many thoughts and experiences are never attempted because of mythical evil or demons. Would demons prefer sheep or individuals?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Could someone explain how creationism is not science?

Here's a very nice checklist to see whether creationism/the Intelligent Design is scientific: undsci.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: howtonhawky
Yeah, but that's not evidebne.

People believed a lot of things based on faith alone throughout history. However, many of those things they faithfully believed in ended up as false.

You can have nearly 1 Billion people in India who have faith in gods, but their belief system is at odds with a Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. They both have great faith that their beliefs are right, but at least one of them (possibly both) are wrong. And then let's factor in other past and present religious views; someone who follows (or followed) the beliefs of the Hopi people in North America have faith in a belief structure that is different than both Christians and Hindus. Or maybe the spirits and the creation story from the Aboriginal Australians is the correct one.

Who's right? Area any of them right? They all have enough faith to claim that they are right -- just like you use your faith to claim that you are right.


Far be it from me to say that a person should not have faith in a God or gods; that's a highly personal matter that I would never judge on an individual basis. However, that faith that all of those different people with different views on gods and creation itself is not enough to be able to claim that any particular god exists.

If you say faith alone is enough , the, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God exists alongside of the multitude of Hindu deities, and along side the spirits whom the Hopi or the Australian Aborigines would say created the Earth.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Could someone explain how creationism is not science?

Let's look at what science, via the scientific method, actually is and does.

Science is consistent,
it's parsimonious,
it is useful in that it describes and explains observable phenomena,
it is empirically testable and falsifiable, based on controlled and repeatable experiments,
It is self correcting when new information and data is discovered,
and most importantly (and a massive distinguishing aspect compared to creationism) it operates on the principle that it may not be correct as opposed to insisting on certainties.

Let's look at Creationism as the scientific method applies to it...

Is creationism logically consistent? Sort of... But only within the religious frame that it applies to. Where this type of consistency goes awry is that it doesn't operate within defined boundaries. What that means is that there isn't any clear way to determine whether or not any piece of data is particularly relevant or not which means that it isn't falsifiable. In this regard, there aren't any tests that can be applied. That doesn't sound terribly scientific to me.

Is Creationism parsimonious? Not even close. It utterly fails Occam's Razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation when they aren't required to explain events or phenomena completely violates the principle of parsimony.

Is creationism useful? In the context of scientific inquiry, "useful" means that a Scientific Theory explains and describes natural phenomena where creation isn't able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, the distinction between the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" seems to be lost on proponents of biblical creation because creationism isn't able to explain why genetic variation is limited to microevolution within a species and can not become macroevolution. Proponents of creationism love to rant and rave about the distinction between the two and how micro never becomes macro yet they're not able to explain why this process is limited in their minds.

Is creation testable? Not at all. It violates a very basic premise of science in its reliance on supernatural entities that in no way have to conform to any testable or observable aspect of the known universe. It provides no model for which to make predictions, it produces no problems in science that scientists can work on and fails to provide any sort of paradigm for attempting to so,be any other problems because "god did it" is a satisfactory enough answer to any query.

Is creationism based on controlled experiments? Again, the answer is absolutely not. Not a single proponent of "creation science" has ever done a single experiment that demonstrated evidence supporting biblical creation nor have any of them done a single experiment that has falsified any aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Furthermore, unlike any aspects of biological evolution, creationism was not the result of any seres of experiments that have produced anomalous results as has happened in scientific inquiry. Instead, it is nothing more than the bastard child of American evangelical christians.

Is Creationism correctable? Surprise surprise... It is not. Creationism presents as an absolute truth with no room for improvement or errors. That's about as far from science as one can get.

Does creationism follow the scientific method? Shockingly no! The hypothesis/ solution isn't based on analysis and observation of the empirical world. Instead it derives solely from religious text. And more importantly, because there is no way to test the veracity of creationism, therefore creationism can not follow the scientific method because testing in one of the most important parts of the scientific method. If it can't be tested, you're not using the scientific method. If you're not using the scientific method then it can't be scientific.

Do "Creation Science" proponents think that it is science? Interestingly, no. Not even Duane Gish who arguably created the concept of "creation science" admits that it isn't scientific in his own writing. If the leading proponents of creationism admit that it's not science or even based in science, then how is anyone else supposed to look at it as a scientific model? They aren't.

Duane Gish in "Evolution? The fossils say no!"

We do not know how the creator created or what processes he used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We can not discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative process used by the Creator.

Since science has tried to claim all processes then that means science was created also.

Science hasn't tried to claim anything. Science isn't a conscious entity or person, it is simply the tool we use when investigating the natural world and universe. Your insistence of such a paradigm is a ludicrous exercise in logical fallacies.

When you say that schools should teach creationism alongside science, what do you mean? Which creation story are they going to teach? And when you say that creationism should be taught along science, do you mean that it should be taught in a science class, or that it should have its own separate class? Also, how should the topic be approached--with the assumption that these stories are FACT/FICTION, or will the different creation texts be read simply as an opinion piece, to be analyzed and criticized?

In my opinion, teaching creationism alongside science is absolutely ridiculous. There is zero evidence that this universe was "created" in the sense that some supernatural force had a hand in its fruition, in any way, shape, or form; there's no reason that these stories should be taught, whatsoever... unless it is some kind of a religious mythology class, and so long as the creationism is presented as mythological right from the get-go.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

it is faith based indeed

it requires faith to begin to understand the things i have said

i assure you that if you genuinely seek answers then it is simply a matter of asking god to begin to show you. if at that point you keep an open heart then you will be shown

be careful of what you ask for though cause if you ask sincerely and you have obstacles in the way then they will be removed so you can see and often the loss of such can cause us great pain in our lives

If it's faith based, then it's not evidence. And trust me, I was a believer for 20 years, you can't just simply ask god to show you things. That is testing god, which is against the bible. You have to realize that god doesn't show you anything, you SHOW YOURSELF things because you are looking for them (ie meanings in the bible that apply to your life). People believe it's god due to confirmation bias or because what they wanted to happen, coincidentally happened. That's bias however, because when things you want DON'T happen you don't consider that evidence god doesn't exist, right?

I've been down that road with numerous religions and belief systems. Each one I followed I thought I had experiences with. When I first came to ATS, I was big into new age spirituality and paranormal things because I also thought I had experiences that allow me to directly manifest situations in reality. I came to realize that the things manifested were not actually manifested. They were things I wanted that worked out in my favor, usually a result of my own actions.

The truth is we do create our own reality. The brain is very powerful. If you believe something to be real with all of your heart, then it becomes real TO YOU, and you will start noticing things in your life that seem to confirm this belief. This happens to people in all different faiths and religions. Luck is part of life. There is not a truer passage in the bible than "Seek and ye shall find". That is true, no matter what you look for.

And for the record I DO think creationism should be taught in schools. It should be taught in mythology classes and critical thinking classes. Studying and scrutinizing creationism is a great way to teach students how to find logical flaws and fallacies in arguments. I honestly think that would be a great tool for students and will encourage logic and critical thinking in the future, regardless of the claim.

Good news everybody!

I have searched and found a path.

Q should creationism be taught in schools.
A yes

Q can creationism be taught in schools?
A no not yet

Currently we have no structure to support such in the universe to handle such without destroying science and that is not what i want nor what i believe most folks want. It will take some years to implement the necessary backbone of society to allow for the things i have been speaking of on the subject.

I came to the understanding that most of the arguments and debates on the subject have not been grounded in logic on either side but just another war based left right up down paradigm that is so often not what we perceive.

At this point i will concede my argument with the current establishment on the subject and ask for any who can do the same to do so because both sides are causing too much harm at this point.

Let us now be patient and soon we as a society will take great leaps forward in understanding greater things and you will all one day understand each other much clearer.

It will be a win for all sides and mankind and animals will benefit from the new structure.

I really can not say much more at this time except all sides can benefit from the faith both sides share in our own ways.

a reply to: deadlyhope

please tell us what EXACTLY - you wish the "creationism " syllabus in schools to cover

a reply to: logicsoda

Bingo! Even inside the Abrahamic faiths the creation story is a bit vague. You leave those and travel in any direction, they are much different. From "the universe came into being, then the Gods" to "It was always here and always will be" to lots of other things.

Why not teach it beside science? Its not science. That is why. It is Theology or religious studies at best. I went to a Christian School (even if I was never a Christian). We had "Christian Studies" (yeah that worked ) and it could have been taught there. But Science? No. Science should only teach science. Creationism fails that at every term. The best you could do is use Creationist Science as a study of pseudoscience.