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

evolution is a myth at best.......and can be dismissed as anything scientific sing 3 letters....DNA...if we all came from a single cell and evolved we should then have the history of evolution in our DNA but alas I cannot take your DNA and make a bird , tree, reptile, monkey..etc out of it.... evolution doesn't stand p to science either......it is a religion that is why you get so offended if someone brings up other possibilities....hmmmmm

a reply to: hanyak69

We DO have the history of evolution in our DNA. Heck, the entire field of genetics helps prove evolutionary theory. You do know that humans and the banana tree share 50% DNA similarity correct?

tell me one LIVING example of evolution.....adaptation is not evolution.

according to who? So I can take your dna and make a banana out of it? a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is already taught in religious education classes here in the UK but not in science classes because it is not science.

Why lie and say it is?.

originally posted by: hanyak69
according to who? So I can take your dna and make a banana out of it? a reply to: Krazysh0t

You share 50% of your genes with a banana.

You've probably heard about how humans share over 98% of their genes with some chimps. It shows just how small differences in DNA can make a huge difference in the way life takes shape. Well, how about this one? We share 50% of our genetic make up with a banana.

Scientists have found this thanks to the Human Genome project, which mapped all the genes in the human body and allowed them to compare our genes with other life forms. Here are some other interesting comparisons: We share 60% of genes with a Fruit Fly, 75% with a mouse and 80% with a cow!

originally posted by: hanyak69
tell me one LIVING example of evolution.....adaptation is not evolution.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment

a reply to: hanyak69

Troll alert...troll alert...

a reply to: deadlyhope

Zues throwing lightning bolts was widely believed for hundreds of years, should we include that when teaching kids about weather patterns. If not explain why

a reply to: hanyak69

Your lack of understanding doesn't mean science can't stand up to it.

Are you supporting creationism?
Can you show a piece of empirical evidence for that then if you are?

We do have the history of evolution in our DNA. Every living organism's genome proves that it is related to every other living organism.


a reply to: hanyak69

a reply to: Woodcarver
Doesn't work on creationists. That helps confirm what they believe unfortunately.
They care not for the dates proposed either.

originally posted by: hanyak69
according to who? So I can take your dna and make a banana out of it? a reply to: Krazysh0t

I suppose one could, if they had the proper knowledge and the right tools. Scientists have been able to remove dna and replace it with other types. (I.e. The goats that produce spider silk, cats that glow in the dark, vegetables that carry pesticides,)

Dr. Horner has shown that you can manipulate the latent alleles in a chicken and turn the feathers into scales, give it teeth and extend it's tail. All of that info is right there in a chicken.

a reply to: Cypress

No, because it is not currently wide held belief. If it was, I would say yes, it should be mentioned - not deemed the cause of weather patterns, not deemed equal with what meteorologists have to say, but yeah, if it was a popular belief, it should be given credit that a large amount of people believe it could be the cause.

Creationism has a huge majority

www.washingtontimes.com...

While no religion should be taught in schools, as there are many - believing that we came from something else is something to be given credit to.

Why should we appeal to the minority on this topic, and specifically deny teaching creationism? I'm not advocating for it being the center of attention nor the main curriculum, but to deny it altogether... That's basically censorship, in this case, because it's not about one religion - I believe in separation of church and state. But to not teach the very most widely held belief of how the earth came about... That's censoring, that's the reverse problem. Denying a form of teaching because it might be or could be affiliated with religion.

I debate that it's affiliated with eighty percent of the population. That while the majority should not over rule constitutional rights, it should be given notice, it should be at least mentioned as the most widely held belief even if the teacher is required to say there is no scientific evidence to back it.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Yes, the majority of people in the world are religious and they hold beliefs that are not scientifically valid. That is because we used to teach creationism in schools.

We don't teach it any more because it is not scientifically valid. Not just because it is religious in nature, but because there is absolutely no evidence to teach.

Schools will give a secular education and it is up to you, should you choose to do so, to educate your children about the religious* aspect of life. There are a ton of things which aren't taught in school which we supplement at home. Schools should not be the sole source of education for a child, that's what parents, churches and synagogues, temples and other places of worship, education and culture are for.

*edit: and yes, I firmly believe creationism is a religious teaching.

Greek mythology is taught in school. Creationism as a lens of Biblical Genesis mythology can also be taught. What people think evolution is, and its practical consequences on humanity are just as divergent as what is written in the bible or the writings of Homer, and what Christians or Disney fans believe.

When a child leaves school and moves on to their careers, their understanding of evolution, its history, facts, fiction, publicity stunts, and dates will be a jumbled mess. By the time they find themselves debating or teaching on the subject, virtually every premise they hold dear will be false. Even material facts they remember will likely be inaccurate by the time they get into an actual debate on the subject. Nova for example, contends that experts concluded human evolution has ceased some 40,000-50,000 years ago. Therefore, of what practical use is to students to believe? Ray Kurzweil is obsessed with promoting extropian transhumanism including evolutionary leaps through cybernetic symbiosis.

Thousands of years ago, we had fire, aether, water, earth, and wind. Now we have solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and dark energy/vacuum. Does a model founded in mythology prevent inspiration or innovation because it is myth? Civilization would be foolish to think so. The geological time line has been dilating since it was first proposed. Deep time got deeper, and the age of the universe eventually expanded, then contracted, then expanded again. Now we speak of Branes and the Multiverse. Of things billions and billions of times bigger and older than our universe, a wellspring from which ours among many others are born. 70 light years from here, any civilizations that might exist and have the capacity to see other worlds in any kind of detail modestly better than our own astronomical instruments will know we exist, they will know we have had radio capacities, and know that we have used atomic weapons on our planet, and continued to do so hundreds of more times.

We have bigger things to worry about than whether another mythology should be added to the education of children, or whether human being's pathetic understanding of biology should be hailed as the new religion for the devout.

Here you go.

NOVA Intelligent Design On Trial

It's like ... maybe 2 hours long but it's really really informative.

It explains why Creationism/Intelligent Design, is not real science and cannot, should not be taught in schools.

It covers a lot, including how Evolution is real Science and why Creationism isn't.

If people don't want to spend too much time watching it, I suggest skipping towards the last 30 to 45min or so and start from there.

Every time I hear people say stupid crap about Creationism or Intelligent Design, I just tell them, well explain to me the purpose of my appendix, and also, explain to me why whales still have hip bones in them.

nvm

So many here preach acceptance of others, acceptance of other beliefs and personal expression. But when you suggest teaching about every belief and leaving the student to make up their own mind...NO WAY! You can't teach something other than what I believe...you can't offer a different perspective than MINE!

But when it comes to sexual orientation, race, illegals, etc...the same people scream for equality and tolerance. The one thing I have learned about many on ATS is that those who demand acceptance, tolerance and equality are the first to tell others, on topics they chose...that they are STUPID, IGNORANT, WRONG...and that only their belief is acceptable.

Hypocrites. I could name them and give you a list of each and every one and they do it without fail. Easy to bait...immediate and reliable in their intolerance.