3rd Attempt: Question regarding teaching creation?

Question

This quesiton is for creationists who want the theory taught as an alternative to evolution. I'm asking it again because I have yet to receive an actual answer from a creationist.

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.

Answer 1

I understand, you don't mean to be rude, thanks for asking politely!

I have a hard time with it, and I'm a Christian. How do we teach creationism and stick to the separation of church and state? I don't think it is possible. I don't want public schools teaching anything spiritual in nature, that's what churches and families are for. I've always thought that was why they came up with the phrase "intelligent design" so they don't have to say "God did it". But as a Christian, I can't teach God's word without mentioning God, and I've absolutely no wish to offend other religions in a public school setting.

Guess it can't be done.

Answer 2

Like I said last time. Any evidence they give (like intelligent design) would be refuted by the evolution part of the course. I grew up in liberal san francisco, and I don't remember ever learning anything drastic about evolution. Basically all I learned in my bio class was plants and some silly experiments. I slept through the entire course and got a C. I don't see how these parents are going nuts over this.

(P.S. A theory is science is NOT a guess. Get that in your thick skulls people.)

Answer 3

I just want to say that evolution has never been proven. Like you said "alternative theory to evolution". Evolution is still a theory. Why we are teaching it in school I will never know. I just don't like that they teach it as fact.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer is a palentologist. She believes in evolution. She was the one who discovered soft, fresh looking issue inside a T-rex femur. This "line" referred to, is supposed to be 65 million years extinct. The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr. Schweitzer was having a hard time trying to get her work published in scientific journals. The skeleton was from Hell Creek, Montana. Another paleontologist Jack Horner also agreed that the bones found in Hell Creek smelled. They smelled like a dead animal. How could something 65 million years old, smell like a dead and decaying animal. The answer is right under your nose. (They aren't that old)

Armadillos is another one. They look the same today as they did "65 million years ago". Why didn't they evolve?

Raymond Dart, who thought he found the "missing link" in 1925. In 1970 the famous British anotomist Sir Solly Zuckerman challenged every one of Dart's conclusions. In 1973, South Africian geologist T.C. Partridge presented evidence that the skull was not the missing link and that the skull could not be more than 750,000 years old. The evolutionary time was too short. In 1986 evolutionists Matt Cartmill & David Pilbeam wrote that the skull (australopithecines) is rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes.

All this information done and challenged by evolutionists. They can't even agree on one thing. If they can't agree, how can we teach it as fact in our schools?

Answer 4

I believe the United States falls, unfortunately, dead last in the understanding of evolution amongst the primary developed nations of our world. Sad.

Answer 5

In the classes that I have had they use the ancient texts and literature as well as myths. They use the ancient documents to teach with. Theories don't have to be viable to be theories. A theory is an assumption.

Answer 6

The phrase "survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence" suggests a basis for morality which is different than that suggested by "love your neighbor as yourself." May those in the first group sometimes live differently than those in the second group? Do you sit down differently if you think a chair will hold you up than if you think it will dump you on the floor in a painful and embarrassed heap?

Answer 7

Good luck finding one that will print to paper.
As far a I am Concerned both are equally valid. As something has to be created before it can Evolve.
Creation comes first then evolution.
Only makes sense.

Answer 8

There is no evidence for creation. It is based on faith. It is impossible to teach faith. You can only brainwash people with the idea of creation.

Answer 9

the argument that i am most familiar with is the lack of evidence for evolution.

Answer 10

there is no basis for teaching mythology other than in the format of mythology....