Creationism.....several steps back into the Stone Age...?

Question

Am I the only person who thinks that Creationism has absolutely no place in a science class?! Science is based on PROVABLE theories, not obscure scriptures....

primoa....oh boy, do I feel sorry for you...or should I say, I feel sorry for your children.....can you spell the word "indoctrination"?

Wrecker.....thank you so much for making me smile (well,. laugh out loud, actually....) - the Bible....SCIENTIFIC?

...considering some of the answers on here, I'm REALLY glad I live in the UK.....the trouble is, they want to introduce Creationism in OUR class rooms as well.....honestly, the day that the huddled masses had access to education that wasn't directly controlled by the Church was the day we woke up....

Ok, hands up all those who are thinking of the words "hornet's nest" right now....?

Answer 1

If evolution is a "Law" of science, as is gravity. Then why does irreducible complexity completely prove it wrong. Even on a cellular level, it is known that the cell could not function without all of the extremely intricate components important to its usage. Charles Darwin himself admitted that without transitional forms of life, his entire theory falls apart. Yet no one has found an example of a transitional form. Sure, they have been constructed from a pig's tooth or created by some other ridiculus means, but no true transitional form has been found that would bridge the gap between two species. If a person looks at a watch and believes that it just arose from a series of time and chance, then maybe that person could view the amazing world and say it arose from time and chance. But spontaneous generation was proven wrong in the 1800's, and that is a LAW! How then, could our world, much less life, just appear? Yes, even if it was around for billions or even trillions of years that does not account for its beginning. How did the matter that made up the "Big Bang" come into being? Spontaneous generation is the only possible explanation. It is a LAW that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and it is also a LAW that all things are headed towards greater entropy; both of these LAWS fly in the face of the theory of evolution. When a scientist does not dodge these questions but answers them, possibly evolution could have more credibility.

I think that theories should not be presented as absolute facts and that alternative theories should at least be presented. One has to wonder why so many 'evolutionists (aka "free thinkers") are opposed to inquiry and questioning. But I do agree with you that "scripture" should not be in the science classroom. Science belongs in the science classroom!

Answer 2

Evolution is proven scientific theory just like the theory of gravity or of relativity. True this means that there may be a small doubt as no science theory is ever considered totally proved and they are constantly researching to improve their understanding.

To my knowledge there is not a creditable Young Earth or Creationist objection that has not been proven totally and completely wrong, several times. The tactic of quoting scientists not only goes against the accepted method of summarizing the material, highlighting the point and giving a good reference, but is knowingly and intentionally taking the quote out of context - in bible studies this may be ok, but in science, it's the same as lying.

Edit:
Teach science as science, teach kids to think objectively and to do the appropriate research. If religion is to be taught, then do it in a comparative religion class or a philosophy of religion class.

Edit:
Intelligent Design was never presented as a formal hypothesis because its creator knew it did not have any evidence and because of that would not stand up to peer review. To compound this, he did publish it directed to the layman audience - still without a shred of evidence - for the money and recognition. Despite that ID has been throughly debunked.

Answer 3

I find it odd that in the 60's and 70's even ministers and priests had not problem with evolution. Now suddenly it must be wrong. People would rather believe a book put together for a roman emperor than there science books. Religious radicalism isn't limited to Islam or the middle east. It's ironic that as I grow up I always looked forward to a new century and the marvels it would bring. But I have found in this new century religious radicals that make the future look dark.

Answer 4

Hi....

I for one, will partition 'against' any move to teach children creationism again in schools!

You are 'so' right stating 'stone age'....

We are presently moving 'forward' with science, in education about the World and Universe, also our part in it all.

To go backwards into religious ways and beliefs, can only hold mankinds progress back and would 'delude' further generations of humanity!

Answer 5

You're right. It's like going back to Middle Ages. I don't understand why some people prefer to believe the fairytale of God sitting down one day and pulling out of his hat all creatures one by one rather than more logical explanation that evolution has shaped all beings in the their actual form.
Creationism (and religion in general) has a place only where science can't reach yet. Just imagine the distress that was caused by an eclipse in ancient times. It was thought to be some supernatural event, a sign of the anger of god or trouble to come. Now we know it has a very simple explanation and we stopped worrying too much about it.
Creationism is a sign of a primitive mind.

Answer 6

No,actually the majority of people accept evolution.Even the majority of theists.Evolution isn't "in trouble"It isn't even under debate,except for the details.Only a very few nuts would have you think anyone actually rejects it.They are few and isolated,even by the mainstream churches,who had to adjust somewhat to reality or lose people,who are more educated these days.These isolated nuts think that by being vocal,they can make people believe there is an ongoing debate as to the validity of TOE.This is deceptive at best.TOE is unchallenged.Let no nut who would rather hang onto their lie,and stay in the stone age,than embrace the undisputed FACT of evolution,convince you otherwise

Answer 7

You are not alone. Unfortunately almost half of the USA claim to be bible believers and think that everything in the bible is literally true, no matter how much nonsense it is.

The only creationists with any followings outside the USA are the original group Ken Ham came to the USA from in Australia, and Harun Yahya in Turkey.

Here for your amusement is the Islamic version of creationism. You will see that it is just as fearful of science as the American Christian version.
http://www.harunyahya.com/

Answer 8

I feel so relieved to have found so many people here i agree with! People who refuse to accept evolution are just plain ignorant. Only when man started to understand science, did we truly advance beyond primative times. If science hadnt been accepted by our more intelligent and open-minded individuals, then we wouldnt have the computers and internet that we are using to debate this topic now!! Science is open to new answers and proven facts. Religion is just a far fetched story made to ease the minds of the ignorant, in days when we didnt know better.

Answer 9

Nope...I feel the same way. Maybe evolution might not be right....BUT it's more steeped in scientific theory than Creationism. So, shouldn't evolution be taught, since it's a scientific theory, and creationism is more for churches, and not a scientific theory? If you want to learn the "truth" (for Christians, it's Creationism) go to Church, and if you want to learn evolution theory, stay in school...it's my opinion.....

Answer 10

Science should be based on what the scientific community consensus and understanding is rather than what popular vote of the public wishes it to be. Otherwise we might as well start teaching horoscope casting and crystal ball gazing. Creationism is religion dressed up in scientific garb rather poorly. The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected it. So no, I don't think it has a place in science class. In comparative religion, social studies, or philosophy maybe.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked. Many scientific journals have reported their break throughs unraveling things that were supposed to be irreducibly complex.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/uoo-eo040406.php

Abiogenesis is not addressed by evolution which only explains what has happened to life since it arose.

Answer 11

You are quite right. The first answerer has no idea. The the typical Christian answer is that there is no proof. They don't even look for it. The evidence is there to see in fossil samples. At least there is evidence for evolution. Nobody can present evidence that even supports the exist of God never ind proves it.

Science and religion don't mix. eligion should stay out of the science class. Creationism has no place there. If they want it taught in the science class then maybe we should push for evolution to be taught in the religion classes.