Should we teach creation in school? and which version? what do you think of the below quote?

Question

"There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science."

OMG sketch, i laughed so hard i almost just drowned in my own spit.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/index.html

here you go fireball.

Answer 1

Maybe they should just have a disclaimer section at the end of every science course that says "Disregard all previous material if your head is up your butt."

Answer 2

Intelligent Design accounts for the facts as well as the evolutionary theory.
I am not saying that mutation, adaptation and selection do not occur, only that the generally taught theory of evolution does a very poor job of explaining it and that what most children are taught in school is no more scientific or provable than ID is.
There should be a class called Theories of Creation and include evolutionary theory, intelligent design, pure creationism, even the great spaghetti monster or even that the Universe was sneezed out by a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure, but teach them all as theories, and give the students the information to decide on their own which is more plausible.

as a side note, i find it very amusing that those who are most religiously zealotous about evolution are also most often the ones who are environmental psychopaths, wanting to save every fish, insect, lichen, flower, tree, and other lifeform from extinction. If they truely believed in evolution then they would applaud extinction, since if a species cannot not evolve to survive it should not be allowed to survive as the species that can evolve and survive deserve the resources of the other species so that they can continue to evovle and survive.

Answer 3

I think that the people who argue for creation being taught in schools have probably already taught their children about their beliefs and that now they are just trying to convert other people.

I think that instead of teaching it as true fact that it should be presented as a possibility alongside the other possibilities. I believe that evolution is undeniable, but that there are possibilities about the extent of evolution.

I'm not saying we evolved from apes (actually no one is, they say that we have a common ancestor), I'm just saying that there were definitely other human like things before us. Maybe Adam and Eve were other human-like people. God created Adam and Eve in his own likeness, but we don't know what God looks like, so how do we know what Adam and Eve looked like? Maybe we have evolved since that point.

As for your quote, I think you probably already have your own opinion. I agree with everything in the quote except the last sentence. We already put things into science classes that we aren't 100% sure about. They are called theories. There are other theories mentioned, and this theory probably deserves its fair mention as well, but I'd say it doesn't have a week's worth of discussion in a science class. Thats why theology classes are offered.

Answer 4

True dat.

Why do Creationists think that science is democratic. They believe that if enough people want something to be taught, we should just mandate it through the court system. Forget the rigorous process used to determine what should be taught. Let's just vote on it!

Act D...your reasoning and understanding of the word theory, adaptation and extinction are so bad they can barely be classified as wrong. Open mouth, insert foot, and let the adults do the talking.

Answer 5

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.

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.

Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most famous for using the design argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

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

What about teaching it in school? 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.”

Answer 6

The best scientific theories should be taught in science classes. The Bible is a spiritual book, not a science book. My take is that creation as described in the Bible is a poetic metaphor for how physics worked. Both are correct in their own context.

Answer 7

Who determins what the best available science is?
There is no scientific basis for evolution because it cannot be tested in a lab.
So why teach any of it at all?

Because satan has convinced many that intelligent design is a hoax. Why? So that man will not be in heaven with God.

Answer 8

The school system is not just for science.Don't you think that school should teach all areas of life? Religion is a very important area of life, and belief in God is also. So teach your science in science class and teach about creation in its own class.

Answer 9

We should only theach the truth. We should tell children that no one really knows how the universe began. There are a lot of opinions some bassed on scientific theory, some bassed on religious belief and still others bassed on both.

What is wrong with that?

.

Answer 10

It should be taught, but not as a science. It should be taught so that children grow up learning different points of view, as well as respect for religions.

Wait a minute - don't we learn this stuff in RS anyway?

Answer 11

Since the discovery of DNA Atheistic scientists are leaning more toward Intelligent design, but you`d have to learn more about the complexity of the DNA double helix to understand my answer. All that aside, I`d have to say that both theories of how we come to be should be taught in school so the student can decide which theory he/she finds more credible.