Why are evolutionists afraid to teach evolution and scientifi creationism in schools at the same time?

Question

So called Liberals have fought for years to keep the "Theory of Creation" out of schools and yet it can be taught as a scientific theory using evidence. What are evolutionists afraid of?

Answer 1

Almost every open debate between Creationists and Evolutionists are won by Creationists. That is why
Evolutionists are afraid to have Creationism taught in schools/colleges.
Evolution is based on scientific proof,or so it is widely thought,but Creationism is also based on scientific proof. The fact that Creationists believe all living things were created by a Creator does NOT subtract from the fact that ALL creation science is based on scientifically proven fact. Creation Science is not just based on religious belief,but on hard scientific facts. Thus,I believe Creation Science should be taught in schools as the opposing view to Evolutionary Science. How can our children be fully informed of all the facts if only one side is taught to them? As it stands right now, evolution is being taught as the only answer to the origin of life,and it hasn't been openly challenged...until now.
Those who don't believe in creation say that it shouldn't be imposed upon their children in the schools,but there are other things to consider.What about those of us who don't want evolution imposed upon OUR children? What makes anyone think that the rights of the evolutionists supercede the rights of creationists?
Not to put any less value on the other religions of the world,but Creationism and Evolutionism are the two largest worlwide beliefs,and the most debated over. I feel it is only fair and logical for Creationism to also be taught in schools/colleges as the opposing view to Evolutionism and let the people who are being taught make an equally informed decision as to which one they believe to be more factual and logical.
I cannot speak for all Christians,but I for one am prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to see that this happens,or to at least get the ball rolling,so to speak. Yes,I realize it will be an uphill battle,and I am only one person,but the voice of one can lead to the voices of many being heard. As I said before,this isn't just a matter of religion,because Creationism is also based on scientific fact,and we can prove that if given the chance to broadcast it wordwide. As it is right now,evolutionists have thwarted all efforts to make creationism a known truth against them,but if enough people are willing to stand up and declare their rights to have their side represented,then sooner or later, we will be taken seriously and our voices will be heard.

Answer 2

1. Calling it "Scientific" Creationism doesn't make it science.

2. Calling the opposition "evolutionists" does not mean that they are not scientists with a well crafted theory that can withstand any honest scrutiny.

3. Accusations of cowardice are grade school rhetoric. Are you calling the US Supreme Court cowards? The fact is that wasting educational time on thinly-veiled religious doctrine with a little scientific jargon thrown in is both unwise and uncontitutional.

4. Calling them "so called Liberals" is a poorly concealed effort to mask the fact that the ban on teaching "Scientific" Creationism has extensive bipartisan support.

5. Evidence does not mean picking select facts and asking cryptic questions.

"Scientific" Creationism was shot down as empty polical rhetoric two decades ago, but the rhetoric refuses to die.

Too bad

Answer 3

First of all, there is nothing "so-called" about me. I am a Liberal and proud of it. Second, I have no problem with teaching creationism in schools provided that all the creationism theories here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_belief can be taught. All of them should be given equal time and they should be taught in Social Science class where they can be put in proper perspective for the students. After that if the students want to do more independent research and form an opinion on if they wish to believe in one of them then it is their choice. Third, saying "Theory of Creation" can be found in a book (no matter what the book is ) does not scientifically validate it.

Answer 4

Because creationism isn't science, it's religion. And nothing in the world has caused more problems than religion.

It also means that everyone within the school would be subtly pushed towards Christianity, which I think every Christian knows. They're hoping they'll get converts.

Creationism is not fact. It's not even science, math, writing, reading, or any of the other things that should be learned in school.

It's religion. And you already have a place to learn about your religion. It's called church.

Keep your religion out of the schools. That's a place for fact, not fantasy unless it's in the form of a good novel.

Answer 5

Creation is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. And that is why it cannot be part of a science curriculum, or part of any curriculum in a state-sponsored school. I almost wish these Christian "creationists" would manage to get a law passed to allow such religious beliefs to be presented under the guise of science, and then watch them go off the deep end when teachers who happen to be Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist start teaching their versions of creationism to the kids. These Christians seem to naively believe that if "creationism" is allowed to be taught in public schools, it will be only the Christian version of creationism that gets taught. But of course the state cannot designate which versions of creationism can be taught. The Constitution won't allow that.

Answer 6

right that's some info about the age of the earth that I extremely have dug up: The earth's magnetic field is slowly deteriorating. If we bypass back seventy 2,000 years, our magnetic field might want to be better than the solar's. in case you extrapolate the inhabitants back to 2 hardship-free ancestors, and get rid of one/2 the inhabitants each and every 80 2 years with the aid of warfare, famine, ailment, and so on. it suits back precise to 6,000 years. in case you bypass back to 50,000 years, you've got about 2.2 x 10^88 people. that's envisioned the universe won't be able to carry that many bodies. there is not any widely used clinical way as to how a comet can form. Comets visit pot at a consistent price. in case you're taking the smallest comet back 12,000 years, it would want to be better than any planet in our photo voltaic equipment. there is many holes contained in the clinical argument. i'm no longer even going to bypass into element on how wrong the fossil record is, with the aid of the undeniable fact that could want to take all day. i'm basically declaring that, in case you've faith in an all-efficient, supernatural being, there are 0 holes. technology is drastically shifting to help the conception of a youthful earth as better evidence is discovered. i'm particular i will obtain infinite thumbs down for this, notwithstanding the actuality has to get accessible, when you consider that virtually the entire inhabitants has been blindfolded through dogmatic "clinical" teachings.

Answer 7

Clever argument, but incredibly disingenuous. "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron... there is NOTHING scientific about creationism. It is a religion.

Secondly, putting "so-called" in front of "liberals" doesn't make them into anything other than liberals.

Evolutionists aren't afraid of anything except decades of scientific discovery and advancement being tossed aside in favor of religious superstition masquerading as science.

Answer 8

If you taught Creationism in schools, you'd have to teach the creation story of every religion just to be fair. Best to leave the science in the science class and put the creation myths in a "World Religions" sort of class. Also, if you, personally, believe in Creationism, you can just teach that to your children at home.

Answer 9

It is NOT a scientific theory! There is nothing scientific about it! All the evidence is faked by amateur scientists with degrees from places like "Patriot Bible University". e.e

Evolution required years of thought and study in natural environments to theorize. It followed the scientific method closely and finally came to its conclusions.

Intelligent design involved looking at a 2000-year-old book and saying, "Look! God made everything! We'll bundle this up and call it science. =D"

Do you see the difference? Not an ounce of scientific anything went into Intelligent Design Theory.

Answer 10

Well, we are afraid that when children are presented with two theories, one based in logical fact(evolution), and the other based in bull(Creationism), they will pick the wrong one because it requires less thinking. This is a problem science has faced for a long time, the "well, if I can't figure it out easily, lets just say god did it!" attitude...