Looking for honest answers from creationists...?

Question

Why do you keep trying to get creationism taught in science classes?

Creationism is based on faith, not science; it is also only based on ONE faith, christianity (and calling it intelligent design or anything else doesn't change what it really is).

Don't claim that you just want equal time for alternative views on our origins, I have yet to find any of you that would like to have your children taught about buddhist creation, or how the Sioux thought we arrived here.

There are classes that discuss alternatives to evolution, they're called philosophy classes.

Please don't start in on anything about the United States being founded as a christian nation, it was founded on secularism which is plainly stated in every one of our founding documents.

Are you truly blind to the fact that teaching creationism in public schools would be the same as state-sponsored religion? This is blatently unconstitutional.

Please do not start by saying that it is a THEORY!! It is a hypothesis at best, and has failed every attempt at being elevated to a theory.

Thanks for all the laughs!!

Christians are funny

Answer 1

As you can see from the above answers, you cannot apply logic to a question of religion. Those who believe in creationism look at other religions' ideas of creation with as much scorn as they do evolution. So they don't see the need to include them with their form of religious belief. And they believe that your teaching of evolution is equivalent to a religious belief, so they don't see injecting theirs as equivalent to state-sponsored religion.

Answer 2

Creation is actually supported by other religions; although I believe Christianity to be correct.

As I'm in England I guess I can't answer about your constitution, but I do believe that creation has as good a scientific basis as evolution. The problem is that science demands a naturalistic reason and is therefore unable to accept any supernatural reasoning.
Scientific method cannot be applied to either evolution or creation as neither can be repeatedly tested; so in fact evolution is just as much a philosophy as creation. Neither can be truly regarded as theories in scientific terms (so excuse my use of the term for the purposes of my argument).

Observing the evidence can be regarded as science but the conclusions will be based on your particular philosophical viewpoint. You cannot look at evidence objectively because theories are formulated and then adjusted to fit with the evidence. The "theory" of evolution has changed radically over time as new evidence emerges. The "theory" of creation has remained the same and emergence of new evidence has not changed it at all.

There are really only 2 views on how we came to be here and both require faith in the absence of absolute proof; one is creation the other evolution. If you are going to dedicate science classes to one it is only fair and just to allow the opposing view; the fact that it is supported by any particular religion is irrelevant.

Answer 3

2 things
First. Are you truly blind to the fact that teaching creationism in public schools would be the same as state-sponsored religion? This is blatently unconstitutional.

Is it? Then why is it legal to sponsor Islam?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm?csp=34

Or is it only illegal if it is Christianity?

2nd. You act as if Evolution is a proven fact. Is it now? Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.

Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes? Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion. Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher of your views? I am not talking about mutations in a species, but one species evolving into a new life form.

You asked for honesty, I ask for the same in return.

Answer 4

Creation scientists use the same evidence that evolutionists do. However, creationists have a theory that fits the facts and the evidence found to date. Evolutionists have a theory that they hope the facts and evidence will one day support. Based on your question, I expect that you will immediately dismiss this, but you should look up paraconformities, the geologic strata of the Grand Canyon and the missing 150 million years of evolutionary time, the fossil record especially polystratic fossils, genetics...I could go on and on and on. Evolution, specifically macro-evolution, simply has not been proven. It is believed in more on faith of evidence NOT FOUND, than it is a theory based on existing evidence. Listen to what Michael Denton, a molecular biologist and evolutionist, says in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis "For the skeptic or indeed anyone prepared to step out of the circle of Darwinian belief, it is not hard to find inversions of common sense in modern evolutionary thought which are strikingly reminiscent of the mental gymnastics of the phlogiston chemists or the medieval astronomers." (p351). And "In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity [ie evolutionism] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [ie logic and observation], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists [ie creationists] not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach. It was Darwin the evolutionist who was retreating from the facts." (p353--354) as quoted in Creation Facts of Life (p190) by Dr. Gary Parker.

Biblical creationism fits the facts. We can rely on God's revealed word to us in the bible. I do.

As for this nation not being founded as a Christian nation, you really need to read your history more. There's a really good post about that above.

Answer 5

Scientific creationism is based on scientific evidence in geology, biology and other sciences but offers a different explanation of nature and origins as opposed to secular science and points out scientific flaws in evolution theory, abiogenesis, cosmology and geology, to name a few...it is not merely based on faith or religious beliefs. There is compelling scientific evidence for a creation explanation of earth and the universe and a global flood which is dismissed in evolution theory and other sciences. If any other religion has true scientific merit, those points should be brought up as well. If science in evolution and other studies is so overwhelmingly true, creation science should not be able to refute it and would simply go away. Science should be a quest for knowledge and truth even if that leads to a creator.
A very good site to find creation science answers...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Answer 6

I agree with the fact that you cannot scientifically prove Creationism, but here's the deal:

Your science teachers tell my children that evolution is real, and that creationism is not. The teachers cross the line saying that that evolution is fact, and that confuses my children.

If ID cannot be taught in schools, then the theory of evolution should be taught just as time travel is taught. It's theoretically possible, but not proved.

Science is just as much a religion as Creationism is. You believe in the seen men of Science, we believe in the unseen God of Creation. Why should we accept your theories as proven fact when they aren't? Why should we teach our children that Creation is how the universe began, then to have them confused by secular and atheist teachers? Education is education, not establishing one theory as fact over another, even though it is not proven fact.

I can start in on the USA being founded on christian ideals. If not, why are there laws that state that you can't do certain things on Sunday? Is that secular?

Science is faith in men. Christianity is faith in God. So which religion is the state sponsering? Faith in men. I don't have faith in men most of the time. Especially how much science changes. Is that reliable? No.

If my child decides to research other creation theories, then more power to him. What I will teach him however, is the true theory of creation, which is God. As the Bible says:
Teach a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

I'm quoting what Marji said here, just so we can see it again:‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

– Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons,’The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Answer 7

Honestly - because the Creation Model uses the exact SAME evidence, scientific method and other resources available to us today. It is the interpretation that is different.
There are serious flaws within the evolutionary model and if we're going to be intellectually honest, we shouldn't be afraid to compare the interpretations.
There is as much of a faith element to Evolutionary Theory as there is to the Creation Theory. I'll let the words of an evolutionst illustrate this truth:
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

– Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons,’The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Answer 8

The creationist attempt to force religion into science classroom through creationism died and was replaced with the unintelligent Intelligent Design pseudotheory.

It is a political/religious war rather than a scientific one. There are no alternate theories to evolution, and mythic views belong in philosophy or other such classes.

Introducing all topics to children would be like teaching astrology with astronomy, and alchemy with chemistry without bias. Let them choose, and they'll probably go for the magic.

Answer 9

Evolution is a religion to. So it is a state-sponsored religion? This is blatently unconstitutional.
A lot of evolutionists think creationist are dumb because we refuse to believe in the "Evidence" for evolution. (what evidence?) and we believe things that they think violate the laws of physics. What they don't seem to realize is that Evolution violets the laws if physics. How can a rock tun into a person, or an animal, or a plant?
And for those that do not thing you believe that we came from a rock, read on...
Evolution teaches that we came from animals.
Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.
Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.
Sea life from single-cell life.
Single cell life from chemicals.
Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.
Conclusion, all live came from rocks.
Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

Answer 10

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science