FYI . . I am an Evolution proponent but think there are better people here today who could answer this then myself.
2007-06-27 05:11:52 · 15 answers · asked by ? 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The creationists tend to say they want both "theories" mentioned in science classes. They call this a "balanced view." But of course it is not. One is science, the other is (don't take offense at once) mythology. Or spiritual. Call it what you will, what it is NOT is science.
The Bible is very old. We've learned a lot of new things since it was written. The scientific method -- the whole concept of scientific inquiry -- had not been discovered/invented when the Bible was written. Over the centuries, scientists have been building on the work done by earlier scientists, and by the technological developments of the instruments to measure, calculate, study. Studies of life didn't go very far before the microscope was invented, just to give a single example. Now we have scanning electron microscopes and computers to interpret and improve the images of the things we see at the far ends of our instruments' range, both the very tiny and the very large.
I think it makes more sense for religious people to give God the credit for our brains, which allowed us to develop all this new knowledge. Maybe God did create the world, but evolution was his method.
2007-06-27 05:22:04 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is based on proved facts. There are so many sources Rocks. Canyons, Rivers, Mountains, Layers and layer of Sediment. Fossils. This is what science is. The studying of the natural things that happen and give the best reasons for these happening. Evolution is based on fact and is a fact by all measures of science. On the other hand Creationism has absolutely no proved facts. Words are not fact in themselves they have to have verification. Creationism can not be proved wrong either and if it was science it could be proved wrong. The Supernatural may one day become science but as of today it is only based on myth ans superstition. So, with this in mind it is easy to see why Evolution is science it can be proved and it can also be disproved and if that happens we will upgrade the science textbooks.
2007-06-27 05:36:54 · answer #2 · answered by wreaser2000 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is in science class because it is by its very definition science. Creationism is by its very definition NOT science. It is philosophy/religion. Here is my case for this stance:
Evolution has literally volumes of scientific studies spanning over a century. It undergoes some refining with each new finding but the premise has been proven time and time again, that the origin of man is millions of years of evolution. Each generation is another minute step in the transition of the species.
Creationism is pseudo-science using misdirection and flawed interpretations to make the "evidence" fit with a myth thousands of years in the making. There is absolutely NO evidence for creationism that stands up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny. Creationism does not belong in science class because it is intellectually bankrupt and devoid of actual science.
2007-06-27 05:24:54 · answer #3 · answered by deusexmichael 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because evolution is science. It is a level playingfield accesible and transparent to any faith or creed. It does not exclude the existence of a God. Many science minded people retain a belief in God.
ID/Creationism requires belief in a Creator, a god, therefore it is religion and requires religious beliefs. Atheists and non-theisitic adherents such as Buddhists and Taoists would be forced to accept the idea of a creator God. This is forcing religion into public schools.
Only science belongs in science class. No one is going to churches trying to infuse science into Sunday School lessons and sermons, why should anyone allow religion to be wedged into public school curriculum?
2007-06-27 05:22:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is science and creationism is a religious belief.
Creationism is not falsifiable. There is no possible argument or evidence that you could use to refute the assertion that an intelligent entity had an influence in the origin of living organisms. Science only deals with ideas that are capable of disproof by objective evidence or valid argument (i.e. things which we can potentially prove untrue). Since creationism does not fit this criterion, it is not science, by definition, and has no place in a science classroom.
Evolution is taught in science classes because it's an extremely well supported explanation for the origins of living species, and crucially it's falsifiable.
It's not just that evolution is supported by reason, and by enormous amounts of objective evidence, but the fact that there are many different and *independent* kinds of evidence which *all* support evolution. Maybe it would be possible for just *one* kind of evidence to be precisely in agreement with the theory of evolution, and yet for that theory to be wrong, but for dozens of different *kinds* of evidence to be *exactly* how we would expect them to be if evolution were true... well, you'd have to have vastly more faith than I have to believe that that is just coincidence.
2007-06-27 05:15:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Creationists cover a wide range of beliefs include the belief in evolution (which is what majority of Creationists think).
Creation Science and Intelligent Design is a religious belief it is not science and therefore should not be treated as such.
2007-06-27 05:16:37 · answer #6 · answered by Quantrill 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am an evolutionist, but I also have believe in some form of creation. Creation isn't taught in science classrooms because there is no real scientific basis for it. It would be better suited for a religious studies classroom.
2007-06-27 05:24:59 · answer #7 · answered by akschafer1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That Creation is not science and Evolution is. Keep science in the science classroom. They do not belong together.
2007-06-27 05:19:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Quite simply - creationism is not science.
No physical evidence, no direct observation of the act of creation, no inferences relating to the remote possiblity of this creator's presence, and no peer review process - everything a scientific theory needs to sustain itself is absent.
Please don't try to quote intelligent design or irreducible complexity - they are not science either - all things absent just as above.
Pseudoscience is the most dangerous form of science - it damages science's creditability and reliability.
2007-06-27 05:20:48 · answer #9 · answered by Tsumego 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Their idea is pure theory, which has no supporting evidence other than a book anyone could write.
The evidence for evolution isn't concrete, but it is possible to see resemblances in different species hundreds of thousands of years apart - how did that happen?
2007-06-27 05:15:59 · answer #10 · answered by Devolution 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋