If schools were to teach creationism as an alternative theory to evolution, what exactly would they say? What evidence would be taught to show that it is a viable theory like evolution? This isn't meant to be a jab at the creationists, I really just don't know.
2006-10-06 07:19:08 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Madison: You'll notice that I didn't say "prove" creation, all I said was what evidence would they use to show that it is a viable theory. There is a decent amount of evidence to support evolution, whether or not you noticed it.
2006-10-06 07:29:48 · update #1
Their sole "evidence" is "irreducible complexity" - that anything complicated must have a designer. Which is obviously illogical. But they basically find things at the edge of science, for which it hasn't been figured out yet precisely they evolved, and say well then see you haven't proved yet how it evolved, therefore it must have been designed (and conveniently ignore all the evidence for evolution).
"Intelligent Design" is nothing but a propaganda attack on Science (Evolution). There is no evidence behind it. It relies on an emotional need by it's adherents to believe Evolution isn't true (so that logic can be subverted, eg. the constant "arguments from incredularity"), coupled with ignorance about Science. Therefore their main objective is to promote ignorance and misinformation about Science (Evolution). That way they need no evidence.
2006-10-06 07:36:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a lot of scientists on the Creation side that have done the same searches as those that push evolution. These research projects come with a lot of bias, so will we ever agree? I doubt it.
So I pose the question back to you - what evidence is taught to show that evolution is a viable theory? I know too many young children who can point out the holes in that one. Evolution seems like a stab in the dark to me.
I do believe in teaching multiple sides of any issue. Teach the children to think for themselves. Just be fair and give them all the info and all the angles.
Here is a link to a sight that can give you some ideas.
2006-10-06 14:26:20 · answer #2 · answered by BaseballGrrl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no conflict between science and Scripture. There is a great deal of conflict between science and the Church. The trouble is most "Christians" don't know how to read their own book. History has glaring examples of this (such as the Church asserting the earth was flat with four corners, and Jerusalem at the center, even though the Bible never said this).
But history has glaring examples of science being wrong as well. For 1600 years, since Aristotle, science asserted a "static state" universe: that the universe was in essentially the same state now as it always was, and always would be. They laughed at the idea of the universe having a "beginning", or an end. When science began doing the math, the numbers didn't add up. Einstein tried to "fix" the equasions to make them fit with something called the "cosmological constant". He later called it the greatest mistake of his life. As more and more data arrived, it became obvious the universe was expanding... and therefore required a beginning. In spite of Einstein and many others, it wasn't until the 1960's that the majority of physicists finally admitted that there was a beginning. They call it the "big bang". Scripture calls it creation. Both point to the same event. To teach "creation" is to teach that all things, including time, had a beginning; which fits precisely with science.
If you read Genesis in the Hebrew; not as religion, but as a physics text, you will find it lays out evolution in precise, obvious steps. The "six days vs. 15 billion years" issue is easily resolved today, now that we understand relativity. That answer requires a bit more explanation than is worthwile here, but I can relate it if you're truly interested.
2006-10-06 14:36:17 · answer #3 · answered by antirion 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
And which one of the hundreds of creation stories would they cite? All of them? Only the Christian creation story? The day creation is taught in schools as a viable theory is the day we deserve to be nuked.
2006-10-06 16:51:15 · answer #4 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is why they don't teach creationism. The only real source (Christianwise, at least) would be the bible which is full of holes and contradictions. It seems that an evidence that would be found would be completely unacceptable.
2006-10-06 14:23:01 · answer #5 · answered by DoNNy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was taught evolution in school and never heard or saw any proof. Why does there need to be proof of creation?
2006-10-06 14:22:31 · answer #6 · answered by Lanie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But evolution isn't a viable theory. It has gaping holes which are easily filled by intelligent design. True science, by the way, explores all possible explanations, it doesn't just jettison what's not comfortable.
2006-10-06 14:28:05 · answer #7 · answered by ccrider 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Evolution teaches that millions of years ago nothing came together and exploded, and that you come from a rock, and dont worry, if you die you will just come back as a worm or a plant. Brilliant teaching, isnt it
2006-10-06 14:26:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
thay can show them an apple and a spare rib and a snake that will have the kids laughing
2006-10-06 14:22:12 · answer #9 · answered by andrew w 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most evidence would boil down to 'God says so'. There isn't much more to say about it.
2006-10-06 14:20:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋