Creationists (and others): The FSM was put forth in order to examine the absurdity of the argument that ...?

Question

... creationism alone should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution.

A lot of people embrace the argument and understand the parody. These are overwhelmingly not creationists, though. Indeed, I've never heard a creationist's response.

So... Creationists, IF I were to accept the notion that an alternative to evolution should be taught in schools, why should it be the Abrahamic/Christian tradition, in particular?

Let me say up front that I'm an agnostic formerly trained in the sciences. For me, evolution has a sufficient amount of evidence to back it up. On the other hand, as a rationalist non-empiricist I also succumb to the notion that what I "know" is limited and therefore leave room for other possibilities. This is more of a social/cultural question than one about religious beliefs.

Answer 1

A scientific theory is developed to explain 'why' the laws of nature like gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, the expanding universe and evolution exist
The theory may be modified and extended, but the underlying law which caused the theory to be devoloped in the first place doesn't change.
It is not 'just a theory' as quoted by thousands of uneducated christians who are confusing the word 'theory' with the word 'hypothesis'.

the creation hypothesis was created by christian's in an attempt to find a loop hole in the laws governing separation of church and state by posing as science so they can legally indoctrinate children with christianity in order to save their dying religion.

luckily, the christian fairytale of creation failed and the overwhelming scientific evidence behind evolution won
.

Answer 2

I could ramble for a long time, but have to focus on one part - the end. A social/cultural question....

My background is faith based, but I don't regard a religion as being the same at all.

Our country was founded by people practicing a form of christianity not endorced by the church of England. It then decided to open things up to all religions and faiths. The term, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has a flaw, in that in essence:

Establishment, meaning a recognized social entity, has the power of a base of people that support it, and therefore an inherent form of respect, even if everyone doesn't agree with it. This creates lobby groups and all sorts of stewy quagmire best left elsewhere.

The reason to do the Abrahamic/Christian tradition as the, er, "other" way to teach, is because that's what our historical context places as a majority. Yes, it is just as flawed as the two party system, which represents NO ONE.

I believe God created the universe, but I don't need a school to teach me that - so I'm pretty undecided about it particularly... but I DO know that our educational system in general will have second priority to my 4 month old son's educational experience. I will NOT leave learning to that, or any other system alone.

Answer 3

As a Creationist (and a tax payer), I find the argument that creationism alone should be taught in the public schools (or in any school for that matter) beyond absurd. By the same token, I find it absurd that any philosophy should be taught as a science. I agree that evolutionary theory can be supported by scientific evidence and I think creation can also be supported by scientific evidence (in many cases, the same evidence!...it comes down to interpretation).

However, when evolutionary theory turns to speculation about untestable hypotheses, it becomes a philosophy as surely as creationism. That's the root of my objection to the argument that evolution alone should be taught in public schools! Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God because it isn't possible to eliminate all the competing explanations using scientific means.

...so, to answer your question, I do NOT "accept the notion that an alternative to evoultion should be taught in schools"...if by alternative you mean that evolution should be eliminated and replaced by the biblical version of creation. Instead, I believe that education should refrain from teaching theories as facts and that it should be open to exploration of ALL competiting theories about the origin of the world. As a Christian, I find it repulsive that my tax dollars will pay the salary of a teacher who will tell my my son that he (and I) are "stupid, ignorant or uninformed" because we choose to believe that God created the world...and I would find it equally repulsive if your tax dollars were used to teach your children that they (and you) are stupid or sinful or immoral for choosing to believe that God didn't create the world.

Answer 4

Only micro-evolution is a science, and it should be called diversification so it would not be confused with the theories of evolution.

These theories are being taught as facts and not theories.
That is the problem.

According to evolution, man lived million of years after the dinosaurs, yet there are places around the world (Glenn Rose Texas is the best example) where human and dinosaur footprints are in the same rock.

Many evolutionist do not believe it even when they see it with their own eyes!!

Why, because the theory says that it can not be.
They believe (have faith) in the theory even though the evidence they see with their own eyes says it is wrong!

Talk about blind faith!!!

Answer 5

Hurrah for the Flying Spaghetti Monster! He makes as much sense as any other god invented by priests that tells us to pay these priests. In science classes, the latest science is taught ideally. Evolution is the only game in town now, so only it is really science. If it is disproven in the future, it will be discarded with other outmoded scientific ideas. Creationists refuse to discard their outmoded belief, however. Some try to add some pseudo-science to it and manufacture faults with evolution. Even if evolution could be disproven, that would not prove creation myths. The creationists arguments are silly.

Answer 6

I believe in the creation as written in the book of Genisis in the Bible, because even though the Bible was written hundreds of years ago, and over time, by different men, it all agrees together. Each book of the Bible agrees with the others. There are differences in expression, and different styles of writing, but that's because of the difference in the personalities of the men writing down the history, and the culture in which they found themselves. Still, the basic story agrees. The basic story is: God is the creator, He wants us to follow His teachings (which He gave for our well-being), we'll be blessed if we follow His teachings, and we'll reap the negative rewards of our actions if we don't follow His teachings. I don't understand why that basic premise is so difficult to understand and/or accept.

I see no evidence at all that evolution ever happened. I've read alot of speculation, but no real actual proof that man descended from monkeys... Maybe YOU did, but I didn't. God created me :-)

Answer 7

right here or someplace else? right here, there are not too many Bible-believing Christians who comprehend the thank you to make a sturdy argument for introduction. fairly some the arguments made for the two area in this talk board are extra emotional than logical. The atheists troll and the Christians whine. the two strikes and reactions make stronger one yet another. that's why i attempt to proceed to be interior that small team of Christians who could make sound arguments for our place. What somewhat disappoints me is that we get no help by any potential from those whom we predicted to be our appropriate allies in this debate--the Jews. They whinge that we don't save on with the Torah, then they turn precise returned around and say, "Oh, God became into purely speaking figuratively in Genesis." somewhat, now? Then wasn't He additionally speaking figuratively in Exodus and Leviticus? would not that make it ok for everybody, Jew or Gentile, to handle the Torah like a set of policies somewhat than certainly policies? Or, extra useful yet, can no longer we forget with regard to the Torah altogether, with the aid of fact the full God writing on pills ingredient isn't "medical?" It frightens me that i comprehend extra approximately Genesis than the "champions" of the Torah.

Answer 8

As a matter of historical accuracy, if religion is to be taught in public schools, it should include the indigenous pre-Christian faiths of many world cultures... not just those of the Middle East.

Answer 9

Mmmm....I like pesto. I'm a teacher-if we have to teach creationism in schools, i'm am sooooo going to teach fsmism too! :P Nah, it will never happen. They may get us to teach that evolution is only a theory and it subject to change (which is what an intelligent person would teach anyway), but forcing us to teach christian dogma? i think not.

Answer 10

i don't know what the FSM is, but i agree when you ask why should it be taught according to the "Abrahamic/Christian tradition". i was always taught this was the way, but lately question it...there are so many 'ways', how do we KNOW this is THE way???

i now follow my own way....no longer a sheep!!