Stop Teaching BB Theory & "Creationism" Teach The Truth

It seems like we're all on either side of the fence on this issue, but why can't we just teach our kids something more valuable? Can't we just teach them something honest, for once?

The real truth behind the universe and life is way too complicated for any person to even come close to guessing, and that is all that every religion and theory [big bang] is, just a guess.

Can't we teach them that we have no freaking idea how any of this is even possible in the first place?

Can't we let them drift to what ever side they feel comfortable with, instead of jamming one side or the other down their throats?

It seems we have a compulsion to associate ourselves with groups. If the media was the only source of info in the world, it would seem that you either believe in god, or you don't with zero flexibility, republican or democrat, ect.

Teaching kids generalization is the problem here.

I agree!
Nowadays the teachings are practically about everything and about nothing at all! It's true we need a bit of knowledge of everything but doesnt mean we know EVRYTHING!

Nowadays all the "real" information we get is either war or economy! Can't we get other than that? Kids need to know about whats going on in the world but not just war and economy! They need to get this simple point: we don't know a dam thing!

reply to post by Jrocbaby


This is why I appreciate agnosticism. The Universe might have started with a Bag Bang, and I enjoy learning about that possibility, the evidence is there, but it could also be wrong. Just like evolution, which I also enjoy learning about, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory, but there are also some inconsistencies in the theory. We should all learn to question the facts and especially the theories, but learning about them is also important, because they are correct in certain aspects - where the evidence is supportive - just not in all aspects, where there are "missing links". It's possible the universe and life was designed by a higher consciousness, but it's also not impossible that life (such as Humans) are the result of time and chance.

reply to post by Jrocbaby


In everything we deal with as a society we are faced with forced dichotomy at every turn, choice one side or the other. No gray area unless you want to be weird and different. Personally, I embrace my weirdness. I would rather not be a societal sheep.

If you are asking a question, the answer is funding. Science is moved forward in the US because of funding. To suggest that there is creation would interrupt or eliminate funding. The Eisenhower administration increased the focus on evolution because the space race was being won by the atheistic Russian ideology, which was oriented towards science. To combat that advantage, the US aimed its focus on evolution and science in schools, increasing the average words in texts from 3000 to over 30000 on evolution. The result is the inflammatory debate you see every day on ATS.

If you don't believe in creation, I suggest you look at www.halos.com.
Have a nice day.

reply to post by Dreslin


Thank you very much for the reply

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Thanks for the reply, and yes there is just too many missing links for both sides

reply to post by bruisedhalo


I love being different, the only reason we're different is because we think, most people don't do that very well or alot of it

Originally posted by Jim Scott

If you don't believe in creation, I suggest you look at www.halos.com.
Have a nice day.

If you believe Polonium halos are proof of creation I suggest you look at www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by Jim Scott
If you don't believe in creation, I suggest you look at www.halos.com.
Have a nice day.

Looked at it. Utter nonesense, written by clueless idiots. Everything presented is the antithesis of science, logic, and education.

reply to post by healthysceptic


Yea I looked at it too, nothing really special...
Thanks for reading it, i just skimmed the website and determined it was not worth reading xD

schools shouldn't be teaching anything controversial in the first place to my mind.

It's the parents or legal guardians place to teach this or help the student reach their own conclusion

reply to post by monkofmimir

The truth. The truth that a Rothschild farted us into existence in a nefarious plot to enslave us into the NWO? They'll never teach us the truth!

reply to post by Jrocbaby

It seems like we're all on either side of the fence on this issue, but why can't we just teach our kids something more valuable?

No, there are plenty of people that have no problem reconciling their own vision of God, whatever that may be, with the scientific fact of evolution. Just take a look at Ken Miller. What would you make part of a biology curriculum that is more valuable than understanding evolution that isn’t already in a typical biology curriculum?

Can't we just teach them something honest, for once?

Specifically, what do you find to be dishonest about the theory of evolution?

The real truth behind the universe and life is way too complicated for any person to even come close to guessing, and that is all that every religion and theory [big bang] is, just a guess.

Evolution only speaks to biodiversity, it has nothing to do with “real truth” behind the origins of the universe or life. Also, I think you have a common misconception about what’s involved in a scientific theory as opposed to the colloquial use of the word. Maybe this will help clear it up:

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Science is based on objective and reproducible evidence. Religion is not. This doesn’t mean the two are irreconcilable, just that the former describes the natural world and the latter describes the supernatural.

Can't we teach them that we have no freaking idea how any of this is even possible in the first place?

Again, it seems like you’re trying to assert that evolution makes claims regarding the origin of the universe or, at very least, the Earth. Those things are completely outside the scope of evolution. Scientific theories typically have a pretty narrow scope and anything outside of that scope is irrelevant to the theory.

Can't we let them drift to what ever side they feel comfortable with, instead of jamming one side or the other down their throats?

I’ll ask the question again, what would suggest be taught in science classes if basic principles of science are construed as “jamming one side … down their throats”? Keep in mind that other scientific theories carry the same weight of evidence as the theory of evolution. If you’re going to preclude the teaching of evolution in science classes, it’s a slippery slope to removing science from science classes on a wholesale basis.

It seems we have a compulsion to associate ourselves with groups. If the media was the only source of info in the world, it would seem that you either believe in god, or you don't with zero flexibility, republican or democrat, ect.

Teaching kids generalization is the problem here.

I would agree, but it seems like gutting science education in order to teach them not to generalize is like cutting your arm off because you got a paper cut on your finger. Teach them to think critically when ideas are apparently in opposition and maybe they’ll understand that those ideas really aren’t in opposition. Hiding one of the ideas away from them just makes them even more ignorant.

This is a so called modern age, why can't we act like it?

I’m unclear as to what is modern about turning a blind eye to scientific evidence because someone perceives that their religion conflicts with it.

reply to post by Jrocbaby


I think you're talking about two different concepts.

The creation of the universe ( if it was created ) and existence are subjects that are beyond the realms of coherent understanding by the current human mind.

The Big Bang theory is neutral; it is just based on the most logical analysis of observed phenomenon. The Big Bang theory is a scientific, and should be interpreted objectively and independently of any pre-conceived philosophical or metaphysical idea of how and why we are here.

Biological evolution is also neutral. The theory of evolution is usually only questioned by those who do not want to believe it - for one reason or another.

Unfortunately, there are those - of all religious/non-religious/philosophical persuasions - who are so intransigently stuck to their narrow-minded ways, that they won't even entertain - let alone seriously acknowledge - a different view when alternative evidence is presented to them.


Scientific theories should not challenge, contradict or defy people's beliefs in a God and/or spirituality. Just as those who follow a rigid line of religious or spiritual belief should not interfere with non-religious people's nihilistic interpretation of these same theories.

reply to post by iterationzero


I'm not disagreeing that people don't have their own visions of god ect, thats my entire point here, people generalize, and that is bad.

What is dishonest is that the theory is being taught as a fact, and as every day passes, it changes in little ways because something new is discovered. My point here is that there is tons to be discovered that will continue to change that theory like dark matter.

I agree religion is not based off of anything at all.

Your right evolution and big bang theory are two different things, I just finished watching Jesus Camp where they mixed evolution and big bang theory into 1 concept, I should change the title to be more clear, but most people mix the 2 concepts together, especially the people who wave the creationism flag. example in science books they sometimes put a sticker saying "evolution is only a theory, and not the be all end all" for the most part, I forget which state that is in, but you can look it up.

I agree we should not remove evolution, as I said I was specifically talking about the big bang theory.


Maybe just teach them instead to keep an open mind and consider all the possibilities.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


You're right and I changed the title.

reply to post by Jrocbaby

I'm not disagreeing that people don't have their own visions of god ect, thats my entire point here, people generalize, and that is bad.

I apologize, but I don’t think I understand what you mean when you say that “people generalize”. Can you give me more detail?

What is dishonest is that the theory is being taught as a fact, and as every day passes, it changes in little ways because something new is discovered. My point here is that there is tons to be discovered that will continue to change that theory like dark matter.

I understand what you’re saying here and I agree that the fact that students aren’t taught more about the features of science and what constitutes science is a real deficiency. I fully believe that there should be more science education that directly relates to the study of science as opposed to any one field of science. Teach students the difference between facts, laws, hypotheses, and theories. Teach them about the scientific method. Teach them how to do science. Then start teaching them about different disciplines within science. I blame our watered-down and results-oriented education system for this problem.

As you said yourself, it changes in little ways. For something that has achieved scientific theory status at this point to be completely overturned by new evidence would be an incredible event for a few reasons.

First, as you’ve pointed out, theories “evolve”, if you’ll allow me a little metaphor, as new information is gathered. For example, really nailing down the evolution of sexual reproduction wouldn’t overturn the theory of evolution. It would just fill a gap in the theory, maybe shed some light of other features of the theory, and would likely pose a few more questions to be answered. I would view dark matter and dark energy in the same way. It’s a hypothesized feature of the universe that, if validated, would fill a gap in the big bang theory.

Second, scientific information is shared at such a rapid pace in our time that examining evidence, repeating experiments, and validating or invalidating reported results occurs very soon after the information is made available. This had the tendency to strengthen theories very rapidly, as we can separate the wheat from the chaff in a much shorter amount of time. For example, look at the announcement of the discovery of arsenic-loving bacteria earlier this year in the media. Within a few weeks of publication, the data had been dissected by other scientists and the conclusions drawn by the researcher were called into question. This would have taken years or even decades in the 1900’s.

Your right evolution and big bang theory are two different things, I just finished watching Jesus Camp where they mixed evolution and big bang theory into 1 concept, I should change the title to be more clear, but most people mix the 2 concepts together, especially the people who wave the creationism flag. example in science books they sometimes put a sticker saying "evolution is only a theory, and not the be all end all" for the most part, I forget which state that is in, but you can look it up.

My high school was the one featured in Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board, so I’m familiar with the attempts to force religious doctrine into a science classroom. But in the case of cosmology, even the big bang theory isn’t inconsistent with a creator. It’s just that science has nothing to say about supernatural causation for natural aspects of the universe. While the big bang theory is incomplete, as are all scientific theories, it’s still the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by the evidence and observations gathered at this point.

I agree we should not remove evolution, as I said I was specifically talking about the big bang theory.

Maybe just teach them instead to keep an open mind and consider all the possibilities.

I still think removing a prevailing theory from science education is a bad idea. If you think that competing theories should be taught, I have no problem with that. As long as, in the context of a science class, those theories have an inherently scientific foundation. If you want education to entail competing models that have supernatural explanations or features, then we’re outside of what should be taught in a science curriculum. Put it in a comparative religions class or something similar.

Originally posted by Jrocbaby

Can't we teach them that we have no freaking idea how any of this is even possible in the first place?

I don't think that it's true to say that we don't have any "freaking idea" how any of that stuff is possible. This has to get mentioned in every thread that uses the word "theory". A theory, in the scientific sense, is not the same as a "theory" when that word is used in every day conversation. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true (as we currently know it) over and over and over again. That is to say that, based on everything that we currently "know" to be true (including experimentation) the theory has been verified many times.

It's like saying my name is X. As far as I know that's my name. Now tomorrow I might find out something that proves it wrong, but it's currently as true as anything.

Now, should they teach creationism in a science class? Not really. It's not science. It hasn't been repeatedly tested to be proven "true". It can't be tested at all.