Can we get our Creation Science in the public school texts and have equal space that it deserves??

Question

What are we going to have to do to get this accepted?? I believe in creation....I want our kids to learn too...

Answer 1

I hope not. Doesn't meet the test of science....

Answer 2

No- equal space is not what it deserves. it takes a few sentences to explain creation science for most.

there is a battle between science and religion going on that does not need to exist... okok..... if you are a 7th day adventist- then you should be upset... not everyone else.
1. the big bang is NOT the theory of evolution. Evolution is change over time in traits any for species .

2. theories are just like scientific law- its been proven over and over and over.
3. its natural selection and change over time at heart.
4. the catholic church i believe even admitted that adam and eve is a fable.
5. How do you explain all of the different animals on different continents? I thought all of the animals were on Noah's ark!!
6. you can believe in god without thinking that the earth was created in 168 hours or less.
7. dinosaur bones are not the work of the devil
8. inteligent design where we are all certain lengths and ratios match on everyone in the planet...? its not true.
9, creationism is a singular point of view. it actually was in my science book. since all of the muslim and judeo christian world believes in it to some degree- we can t discount it but that doesnt mean that it should be taught as science. we can have comparative religion classes available. I hope they bring those back. Creationism isnt science- it is philosophy and faith. Physics and chemistry- that is science.
10. if we can get over how old the earth is, science could compliment many beliefs instead of being in conflict

Answer 3

Anyone who says that creationism should NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL is disregarding one of the key tenets our country was founded on: FREEDOM.

If enough people believe something to be the truth, whether the MAJORITY agrees or not, it SHOULD be taught so that our children aren't ignorant to the thoughts and ideas of others. We don't keep our children from learning about the KKK because we're afraid that they'll all go out and join up. They NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT to become whole people, and it's up to our children to make up their own minds (not that I IN ANY WAY support what the KKK believes in).

The issue isn't whether or not creation should be taught, it's WHERE IT BELONGS in school curriculae. If we teach CREATIONISM with science, then it should be backed up with SCIENTIFIC FACT and there should be a laboratory experiment that can be done by students with a conclusion about creationism in mind. Just as there is with physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc...

Otherwise, it becomes a "soft science", and belongs with PHILOSOPHY. This is fine, in the sense that students will have the chance to debate, discuss, and form well-thought-out opinions about a subject with no overlying evidence in support of it EXCEPT RELIGIOUS TEXTS.

Now, I am of the school of thought the RELIGION should be taught as a curriculum in our schools, but not as in a seminary where you have sermons or prayer, but as a learning experience. There are seven MAJOR world religions, and I'll bet that our Christian children don't know the first thing about Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Shintoism, Taoism, nor the 1.1 BILLION people who happen to have an "anti-organized" religious viewpoint (some of which ARE generally atheistic in their views). This doesn't even BEGIN to cover any of the religions worldwide that have less than 1,000,000 people in their membership.

We, as Americans have the Constitutional Right -- NOT "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" to believe anything we want. And in a more general sense, if we teach what we BELIEVE to be true, not what has been PROVEN to be true (and yes, this even goes for Einstein's Theory of Relativity - which is still just a THEORY!!) then we MUST, by our own Government's Constitution -- the one that keeps you from being censored by the Democrats for your belief in Creationism -- be allowed to teach other religions' origins of the universe as well.

So, in answer to your question: YES, we should get Creationism into school texts WHERE IT BELONGS, and give it equal space (which it DOES deserve). But, it deserves to be in a 'Philosophy' or 'World Religions' textbook, not a Science Textbook, and should be given equal space alongside ALL of the other Major World Religions' views on creation.

***NOTE: I'm not saying by any means that EVOLUTION is the END-ALL of Scientific creation viewpoints, but there is enough experimentally proven scientific fact underlying its fundamental principles that it can be taught in a Science classroom. If we knew all there was to know about Evolution, there wouldn't be such a thing as "The Missing Link".

Answer 4

No. If you look hard enough, every single scientific theory has holes in it. But that's part of the nature of science. Science is a way of knowing about our world. Religion is another way of knowing about our world, but it should not be taught in public schools (trust me, you don't want me teaching my religion in your school!). Science is based on facts and observation and can change with new evidence. Religion (including creationism and intelligent design) is based on rules that cannot be questioned and that cannot be changed in the face of new evidence. Creationists insists that any evidence that doesn't fit their pre-formed ideas must be wrong - that's not science!

I understand people wanting to give alternative ideas equal time in the classroom, but I strongly disagree with that. If there are two competing ideas that are equally valid, then they should have equal time. But things like creationism and intelligent design are NOT equally valid compared to evolution! Not by a long shot!

There are people in the US who believe that the world is flat, should they get equal time in textbooks? What about people who believe that the Earth is stationary and the Sun and everything else orbits Earth instead of the other way around? When things are WRONG, they should not be given equal time.

Answer 5

I think schools should at least encourage kids to do their own research and see if they agree with the science behind big bang/evolution or with the arguments for intelligent design. Students should be taught to research and think for themselves in school, not just told what to think.

There are reputable scientists who see problems with big bang/evolution, and their opinions are not even being considered by the scientific community. Good science should be willing to adjust the theory if new evidence is found that contradicts part of the original results, whether that is evolution or creation.

For a book that gives a scientific argument for intelligent design, try Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator." He is a journalist who interviewed scientists who are each experts in their fields about the evidence for and against big bang/evolution and intelligent design. All of their arguments were based on scientific fact and laws of probability, and they found some big holes in the theories of big bang and evolution. If science wants us to accept those theories, they need to find a way to fill the holes.

Answer 6

One of the most common caricatures made of creation science is that, because it begins with the Bible, it has nothing to do with investigative science. Science asks questions, they say, then looks for answers. So if you start with answers, how can you be doing science?
However, we are obviously not claiming that God has revealed all possible knowledge in His Word. We do claim, though, that where He has clearly revealed certain facts relating to reality (science, history) these are true as opposed to untrue. This has nothing to do, incidentally, with ‘wooden-headed literalism’, ‘bibliolatry’ or a 'failure to appreciate the nature of the literature’.
Creation magazine has already published evidence that virtually all top Hebrew-language scholars at world-class universities (even, perhaps especially, the nonbelievers among them) understand that the meaning of Genesis (i.e. the obvious intention of the writer) is to give us a simple yet factual account of the origins and history of man and the universe, just as is obvious to any straightforward reading by even a child. Thus, holding to recent fiat creation in six earth-days, a globe-covering Flood, etc., is not some peculiar invention of any twentieth century movement but inevitably results from an honest, scholarly dealing with the text itself.
But such matters merely give us the outline, the corner-posts as it were, for a framework of understanding within which to interpret and correlate the facts of the real world. They do not give us all the answers. Rather, they prevent us wasting time looking in the wrong direction while trying to establish the details of the fascinating subjects of the history of man and his world.
‘Aha!’, say the anticreationists, ‘You see? They admit that their investigation is limited by their biblical framework. Evolution-science is open-minded and objectively searching for the truth.’ Not so. There are rigid rules in evolution-science too. You may open-mindedly discuss and consider all possible mechanisms of evolution, but you are only allowed to contemplate explanations which conclude that matter is responsible for its own order and complexity—that is, that there has never been any supernatural creation. And in all of this, we must remember that origin-science of whatever flavour is inherently different from operation science (how the universe presently works—gravity, physics, chemistry, etc.) because we can’t directly test or observe stories about the past.
Because of these sorts of misunderstanding, it is vital that we consider carefully which are the fundamentals of the biblical origins framework. The clear, unmistakable issues on which honesty demands no compromise (e.g. global Flood) must be carefully separated from those issues which are a ‘secondary construct’, and on which we must be prepared to ‘hang loose’, if necessary.
For instance, the venerable pre-Flood vapour canopy model. This is an excellent concept which appears to be implied in the Bible and answers a lot of problems.1 But it is not and never can be regarded as a direct teaching of Scripture.
In the heady and fascinating search for the best explanation in such areas of origin-science as the mechanisms of the ‘mammoth deep-freeze’, for example, let us always hold our ideas lightly, in a tentative fashion.2 Is the sun shrinking?3 What about the moon dust?4 New evidence is always coming in—sometimes this will strengthen an existing idea, sometimes it will have to be abandoned, just as evolutionists have been forced to abandon nearly all the evidences which were used in the earlier part of this century to condition generations of schoolchildren (useless leftover [‘vestigial’] organs, gill-slits in human embryos based on Haeckel’s forged embryo diagrams, Neanderthals, ‘Piltdown man’, etc.).
Standing firm on the basics, yet holding lightly to secondary theories and models as the years go by will prevent Bible-believing Christians having anywhere near as much egg on their faces in this area as the disciples of Darwin have had to endure.

Answer 7

The fact that you BELIEVE in it does not make it science. I see no reason it cannot be taught in a religious school or in a religion class but it is not science. The definition of science is the ability to be disproven and a religious belief that is held through faith cannnot be disproven and is therefore not science.

Answer 8

No because it's not science and it doesn't deserve space anywhere.

It's something that's been contrived to promote a religious agenda and it has no place in public schools or anywhere else.

Why? because not every body in public schools shares your opinion, and that's what creation"science" is - an opinion. It does not stand up to any kind of scientific inquiry at all.

Answer 9

Not if the democrats have their way. They want to abolish religion and they teachings of creationism completely out or schools. They only believe in evolutionary theory of creation and will not make room for anything else.

Answer 10

Sheesh, have Americans not heard of the Enlightenment?