Should both evolution and some kind of Supreme being* creating everything, both be taught in public school?

Question

Should both Darwin's theory of evolution, which most scientists believe in, as well as the theory that Darwin's theory is wrong and the basic concept that some kind of Supreme being* creating everything, which maybe 1-2% of the scientists believe in, also be taught in public school or at least something written in the school science book that states as follows: "most scientists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but there are other scientists who belive by their observation of the world and by their inference the theory that the world was created by some kind of Supreme being* and that the theory of evolution has never been proven."

*Not the teaching of any particular faith or religion.

Answer 1

I believe 100% that God created the universe so yes, I am a little bit biased regarding whether or not it should be taught in school- but if you want to be completely "fair" and not teach religion then at least stick to scientific fact and the fact is your stats about how many scientists believe in evolution are WAAAYYYYY off. Evolution does not come close to fitting in with true science- if you don't believe in God at least be honest with yourself and say I DON'T KNOW how the earth came about and don't make up stories to make yourself look intelligent, according to my facts- a lot of evloutionist (who have truly studied science and not just gotten stories passed down and accepted them as fact) don't believe in evolution: here are some facts to consider:

I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 2

Any one who says that evolution is only a theory does not understand what a scientific theory is.

That being said, there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of a supreme supernatural being. ID is a circular explanation that says if anything has a function it must have been designed. And yet this statement is taken as a truism above reproach.

Creationism is know to be religion dressed up in scientific hand waving and ID can not be tested, neither are science and do not belong in a science classroom.

Classes on comparative religion, logic, philosophy, folklore, and mythology are perfect places to look at ID and creationism.

Answer 3

They should teach whatever scientific theory best explains observations made in nature. Right now that happens to be the (scientific) theory of Evolution. There is disagreement in the Scientific Community concerning specific details in Evolution, and they can be brought up as you cover those areas (neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution*, for instance). Note that such disagreements occur *within* Evolution, just like any other science. Evolution as a whole is pretty solid.

Now some people have other ideas than Evolution. They do not, however, happen to be scientific theories, just ideas. And there are a lot of them, not just the Christian version. To pick an internet favorite, we don't actually know why we should pick the Christian creation myth over the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' creation myth. Unless of course, we happen to believe in one of them, but that's hardly science.

Answer 4

k your stats are all wrong first of all.

second of all, if you don't want to teach a supereme being in the school, you don't have to. But you shouldn't teach the evolution theory as a fact. It is a theory, and should be taught as a theory. And it would also help if the "facts" and "evidence" that support the evolution theory weren't all jacked up with lies and imaginary proof and fabricated evidence.

PS, i love you :)

Answer 5

The problem is, when you start talking about a Supreme Being creating all life, youve brought religious dogma into the arguement.

There is no religious dogma in evolution. Creation should be taught in religious studies courses, not in SCIENCE classes, because it has no basis in science. Regardless whether or not a scienctist beleives the craptastic stories...doesnt make them real or theories... they are still dogmatic rhetoric.

Answer 6

Absolutely not, I'm not gonna get into whether evolution has been proven or not (it has)... but evolution is taught in SCIENCE class, not RELIGON class, even you said it's what most SCIENTISTS believe. Shouldn't scientists decide what's taught in science? Plus, whatever happened to separation of church and state?

Answer 7

Evolution is, should be and will be taught in SCIENCE, specifically BIOLOGY Classrooms.

creationism and intellegent design can be taught in mythology, psychology, sociology, and theology, but not in science classrooms. To teach them as science is indoctrination of religious beliefs by the government and that is contray to the Constitution.(period)

Answer 8

No. Creationism/ID/etc, is NOT A THEORY. So it doesn't belong in science class in school. End of discussion. Or have you found some way to make the idea of a creator falsifiable?

Answer 9

I totally think they should. As long as they dont state any specific religion while theaching the one I would have no problem with it. Maybe then I wont opt-out when they teach Darwins theory ;)

Answer 10

I don't see anything wrong with it, though, evolutionist professers will be against it, because they want the young people to believe in evolution, as a way of gaining power over their minds. That's the way the educational and philsophical system works.