creationism or evolution?

Question

my history teacher put this question on his blog for his students to answer. what do u guys think?

"When it comes to how humans arrived on Earth, should a very detailed approach of "creationism" be allowed to be taught in the American classroom?"

Answer 1

Yes, and let me tell you why. One of the reasons creation is kept out of the classroom is because it centers around a creator as the reason we are here vs evolution which centers around spontaneous occurance. So in essence you have christianity vs athiesm. The constitution is often quoted by athiests and others in regards to the idea of seperation of church and state when it comes to this debate. Since creation is believed to be backed by religion, specifically Christianity, we cannot teach creation in our schools because this would violate this notion of seperation of church and state since in the minds of most people the government would be pushing one religon over all others. But is this fair?

One of the definitions of religion according to Merriam-Webster is "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" ~and~ "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." To further define it we could look at the definition of religious which includes "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity." Another important word to look at here is the word faith. Of the definitions that are given for the word faith we find the following: firm belief in something for which there is no proof, complete trust, something that is believed especially with strong conviction.

So now you may be asking where am I going with this? For a person to believe there is no God they have to do one of two things out right deny the proof of God's existence or have knowledge and proof that God does not exist. For the sake of arguement lets go with the second. Let's also assume that with in the knowledge humans contain there is no proof that God exists. Compared to all of the knowledge in the universe I will even go as far as to say that the knowledge we have makes up a whopping 1% of the total knowledge that exists in the universe. If that is true then the chances that the empirical proof for God's existence is contained with in the 99% of knowledge to which we do not possess. Based on this athiesm in and of itself is as much of a religion if not more so than any other religion, including Christianity. An athiest is religious in that they have faithful devotion to an ultimate reality or deity. Since they do not believe in God they place themselves in a godhead position by putting all their faith in themselves and beiliving in an ultimately reality where a seperate entity (God) does not exist. They have faith in this religious belief because they have a firm belief and complete trust in something for which there is no proof especially something that is believed with strong conviction. The fact is, there is NO proof that God doesn't exist. You would have an easier time convincing me that the world is flat than you would trying to convince me there is no proof for the existence of God.

My point is this, if athiesm is as much, if not more so a religion than any other religion based on the premise to which it is based, then everday the government is breaking the constitutional ammendment of seperation of church and state because they are promoting and pushing one religion (atheism) over all others to the point where it is evident in every subject taught and especially in the subject of science and our origins. To be fair and not push one religion over the other then it would only logically and rationally be prudent to provide all theories of our origins and not one over the other. Because the major element behind creationism is a divine creator it doesn't make Christianity more of a religion than athiesm. Every person, no matter their backgrounds, at some point in their life will put their faith in a god. Wether it is God, themselves, an inanimate object (i.e. money, power), another god, etc. Becoming and atheist is not removing religion from your life, it is simply defining it in another method. It is taking God from a distinct and seperate entity to in essence becoming god within themselves by putting all of their beliefs and faith in themselves or as some would even say, within eachother.

And to make the statement that because a Christian who practices science is null and void because it is backed by religion is illogical since atheistic science is also backed by a religious belief and ideology. Science is not less of a science because a person is a christian any more than science is more valid because the person is an atheist. Both are still held to the same scientific laws, principles and methods when conducting experiments. An atheistic scientist's view is as much biased in their formation of theories as a christian scientist is.

Answer 2

The earth is billions of years old, but homo-sapiens have only been around for just over two hundred thousand years. Before us, there was neanderthal man and other related species
who were not very bright. How can any one of us know definitely what was created, when and how? The Bible or any other religious book is filled with stories that one generation passed on to another. Then all of a sudden someone decided to write things down into a book. Books have not been around for a long time either! Some stories wriitten by a Jew (as in the Old Testament) were then translated into many other languages (Greek Roman, European German,etc.) When writings are translated, there are often mis-spellings, different meanings etc. No one on this planet at the present time knows precisely what happened millions or billions of years ago, so why try to shove religions down our throats. Sure, religious books are nice and if we all did good things, we would all be better off. Other people believe in the religion, that they have been raised in, it's called faith! I think that both sides of the story is worth learning, but again I say, that no one can really know anything!

Answer 3

Interesting, but no. Creationism or even intelligent design is by definition not science. You cannot research an ethereal construct beyond simple philosophical discussion. Evolution is still a theory, but one that is grounded in science and scientific evidence. Creationism is best taught in religious studies. This is not to say it's wrong, just that if it is to be taught it should be in the right class.

Scott M also has a legitimate answer, good one Scott.

yossarius, brilliant answer !

Answer 4

I think that for some thing to be taught in a class room there needs to be some kind of evidence to the truth behind it. I would agree with the theories of creationism if there was even the slightest bit of evidence, the whole Adam and Eve thing is a bit far fetched for me. I am a believer in the theories of evolution it seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Answer 5

Nope. Creationism isn't science, so it should be touched upon, but not gone into in detail. If detail is decided upon, do you go into creation stories other than the familiar Judeo-Christian one?

Also, the Bible isn't particularly a history book. Why the heck is your history teacher asking this?

Answer 6

Science is differentiated from philosophy by experiment. Philosophy seeks 'logical' proof. Scientists create hypotheses, then devise experiments to test them. Scientists know that their results are approximations, that their 'laws' are not immutable... not absolute. They do NOT (as creationists would have us believe) view their theories as absolute 'truth', in the same sense as creationists regard the Genesis story of creation as 'truth'.

What differentiates religion from both philosophy and science is that neither proof nor experimental confirmation is required. Religion can be summed up very succinctly: Where an obvious answer cannot be found in nature, make up an explanation based on the supernatural and accept it as a matter of 'faith'... faith in a 'truth' written in scripture as (claimed to have been) 'revealed' to someone by a transcendental, supernatural being.

Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. It is a 'red herring'... a 'Trojan Horse'. It is a carefully orchestrated subterfuge intended to create the PERCEPTION that there is a scientific controversy where no such controversy actually exists. It is religion/creationism in disguise, tarted up to look like 'science'. Here is the difference:

* At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, science says: "We don't know... OK, boys... let's roll up our sleeves, dig in and find out."

* At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, Intelligent Design (imagine South Park - Officer Barbrady) says: "That's too complicated. God did it. Move along. Nothing to see here. Everybody go home now."

It would be easy to attribute Intelligent Design to intellectual laziness... but sadly, that is not the case. It is a conspiracy. The object is to sabotage science... to reintroduce religion to the public schools via subversion and subterfuge. The saddest thing about it is that a large percentage of Americans ARE intellectually lazy, and generally ignorant of the concept and processes of critical thought. They (enthusiastically) fall for this nonsense.

The objectives of the creationists who are promoting ID are spelled out in the Discovery Institute's so-called 'Wedge Strategy' (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html), which is a political strategy. The main plan is to "teach the controversy"... that being the claim that many scientists reject evolution... except that it is a lie... there IS NO controversy within the scientific community. The ultimate aim is the subversion of science itself, changing the definition of science to include supernatural explanations, rather than it being restricted to natural explanations (methodological naturalism).

The Wedge Strategy's overall objective is this (quoted directly from the Wedge Strategy): "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of (scientific) materialism and its cultural legacies."

You should check out the judge's opinion in the Dover School Board trial... that explains the issue quite nicely. (http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site515/2005/1220/20051220_085143_kitzdecision.pdf

If people want to introduce 'Intelligent Design' into the curriculum of our public schools, that is OK... in a elective 'Comparative Religion' class. But NOT in a science class; that would be a travesty.

Answer 7

As a professional "religionist" I would have to say no. Religion should always be reserved to the religious education classroom and never mingled with science. The problem has arisen from certain individuals who have failed to grasp the meaning of the ancient texts. Religious truth need not be scientific fact.

Answer 8

Not only should creationism should be taught alongside evolution, I also propose teaching Intelligent Falling alongside the theory of gravity.

Answer 9

Not if I am paying for it.

If non-scientific explanations for existence are being taught, then EVERY religion will want their brand of creatinism taught.

It would be unfair to have only the christian creationism myth taught if Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. didn't have theirs taught.

The way I figure it there is so little real facts learned in schools that we don't want to fill it with more garbage.

Blackacre:

Good response!

Tim:

What problems are there with macroevolution?

Answer 10

you may "have confidence" something you % to, such as that evolution is a "faith." despite if, believing some thing does not make it actual. I neither have confidence nor disbelieve in something. I take each thing as conditionally actual or conditionally untrue based on the information and arguments for or against. between the conventional variations between evolution and faith is that the former calls for in straightforward terms the organic worldwide, while the latter calls for a complete supernatural realm of God and devil, demons and angels, djinns and afreets, and despite different spirits a particular faith chooses to populate that realm with. In a private and/or parochial college, I have no concern with faith being taught. I attend a private Catholic college, and despite if i'm no longer a believer, I have no concern with the religion classes (2) that i'm required to take. despite if, that toleration ends whilst it comprises public faculties, that are paid for with taxpayer money, and which pupils could attend with out determination, and regardless of their religious or religious ideals. extra, at the same time because it may desire to be actual that lots of the Founding Fathers have been Christians (despite if lots of the main fashionable weren't), this united states became in no experience based on the Christian faith. that isn't hypothesis, yet is obviously enunuciated in documents such because of the fact the Treaty of Tripoli (i will go away it to you to look that up). the theory of "freedom of religion" skill no longer in straightforward terms the liberty to coach your faith, however the liberty from having another faith forced upon you. this could be precisely the case interior the concern you describe, with public faculties coaching training on Christianity. this could be tantamount to a company of religion, it is expressly forbidden by utilising the 1st modification to the form. i be responsive to you think of that evolution is by some skill a "faith," despite if it is not so by utilising any regular definition of that be conscious. It takes better than "believing in" some thing to qualify it as a faith. And besides, as I incredibly have already stated, accepting the fact of evolution does no longer require concept.

Answer 11

Yes, I believe that Creationism should be allowed to be taught in the classroom.