• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution?

Ethan

Banned
We have plenty of physical evidence for evolution. Fossil records, genetic similarities between species... and then there's just the pure logic of natural selection. Having gone to a Baptist school, I know all the ways Creationists try to bend it around and make it look false, and I can tell you, that is what fails.

I believe in evolution as well, but sometimes arguments along these lines don't really make the cut. Simply because certain animals look similar to each other, or have similar DNA doesn't mean they evolved from each other. Likewise natural selection isn't evolution. It's the various mutations that happen over time, that lead one species to evolve into a completely different animal, is what creationists dispute. Not micro evolution on a rudimentary level.
 

Ethan

Banned
We have plenty of physical evidence for evolution. Fossil records, genetic similarities between species... and then there's just the pure logic of natural selection. Having gone to a Baptist school, I know all the ways Creationists try to bend it around and make it look false, and I can tell you, that is what fails.

I believe in evolution as well, but sometimes arguments along these lines don't really make the cut. Simply because certain animals look similar to each other, or have similar DNA doesn't mean they evolved from each other. Likewise natural selection isn't evolution. It's the various mutations that happen over time, that lead one species to evolve into a completely different animal, is what creationists dispute. Not micro evolution on a rudimentary level.
 

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
Creationism is neither fact nor theory, and it is not something children are required to know as it is inapplicable in the real world. Evolutionism is a theory at the very least, and has scientific background.

People interpret the word "theory" wrong with evolution, though. It's a theory in the same way that gravity or inertia is a theory. It's pretty much unquestioned in the scientific field.
 

Vaporeon4evr

Cyndakill
Exactly. The Bible isn't science, and religion isn't a substitute for science. Creationism is fake anyway, we have more than enough evidence for evolution, and more than enough to disprove creationism.

There is nowhere near enough evidence to irrevocably prove either to be true or false. How about the fact that the two can actually exist at the same time without contradicting each other? Just because evolution may be true doesn't imply that creationism isn't. Apples and oranges.
 

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
There is nowhere near enough evidence to irrevocably prove either to be true or false. How about the fact that the two can actually exist at the same time without contradicting each other? Just because evolution may be true doesn't imply that creationism isn't. Apples and oranges.

With Evolution, the only reason it's not considered fact is that we didn't actually see it happen. We can see micro-evolution, but that's not enough to say that we have proof for macro-evolution.

And Creationism is the belief that the Creation story in Genesis should be interpreted literally, that is, that God made Adam and Eve from dust. The two do contradict.

I believe in evolution as well, but sometimes arguments along these lines don't really make the cut. Simply because certain animals look similar to each other, or have similar DNA doesn't mean they evolved from each other. Likewise natural selection isn't evolution. It's the various mutations that happen over time, that lead one species to evolve into a completely different animal, is what creationists dispute. Not micro evolution on a rudimentary level.

The simplest scientific explanation for these similarities is evolution. The chance that it's due to chance is astronomically small. And the argument "God just made them that way" has no scientific basis.
 

Ethan

Banned
And Creationism is the belief that the Creation story in Genesis should be interpreted literally, that is, that God made Adam and Eve from dust. The two do contradict.

Young earth creationism, you mean.

The simplest scientific explanation for these similarities is evolution. The chance that it's due to chance is astronomically small. And the argument "God just made them that way" has no scientific basis.

Fair enough, but then again the chances of a beneficial mutation staying within an animal, are also astronomically small.
 

Vaporeon4evr

Cyndakill
With Evolution, the only reason it's not considered fact is that we didn't actually see it happen. We can see micro-evolution, but that's not enough to say that we have proof for macro-evolution.

And Creationism is the belief that the Creation story in Genesis should be interpreted literally, that is, that God made Adam and Eve from dust. The two do contradict.

That's not how I've learned creationism. Creationism is the belief that an omnipotent power created life. Not a literal belief in the story of Genesis. I'm sure there are other religions that have some similar view of creationism, but not the way you described it.

Fundamentally, evolution seeks to describe progress, while creationism seeks to describe origin. Thus, the two are not contradictory.
 

LedZeppelin1

Expect theUnexpected
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the possibility of a God assisted evolution. Sure, it's a stretch, but couldn't life evolve to how God sees it should?
 

Ethan

Banned
I'm support theistic evolution too. It actually makes a lot of sense if you read Genesis in Hebrew, the meanings are completely different. But the stance gets trouble for being a "fence sitting" position, because technically, you can get the bible to support anything you want to if you need it. At the end of the day its up to personal discretion.
 

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
Young earth creationism, you mean.

No... young earth Creationism is the idea that it all happened a few thousand years ago, while old earth Creationism says that it was millions of years ago.

That's not how I've learned creationism. Creationism is the belief that an omnipotent power created life. Not a literal belief in the story of Genesis. I'm sure there are other religions that have some similar view of creationism, but not the way you described it.

Fundamentally, evolution seeks to describe progress, while creationism seeks to describe origin. Thus, the two are not contradictory.

Well, that's what it is. It could mean other things, but that's the word used to describe that set of beliefs.

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the possibility of a God assisted evolution. Sure, it's a stretch, but couldn't life evolve to how God sees it should?

I think this is called "intelligent design". Or, wait, no, that's the idea that evolution couldn't have happened without divine influence.
 

cascade88

< go ask alice >
I don't believe that any religious teaching at all should be mandatory in schools. Period. If they wanted to offer certain religious classes as elective subjects, then that's cool, but no one has any business teaching a religious ideal alongside a scientific theory/fact.
 

Vaporeon4evr

Cyndakill
Well, that's what it is. It could mean other things, but that's the word used to describe that set of beliefs.

To Christians, perhaps. But we're not debating Christian Creationism. Taken from wikipedia:

Creationism refers to the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity... In Christian sects such creationism is usually based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 but other religions have deity-led creation myths which are quite different.

Generally speaking, creationism does not contradict evolution.
 

Ethan

Banned
No... young earth Creationism is the idea that it all happened a few thousand years ago, while old earth Creationism says that it was millions of years ago.

And which one do you think is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis? :rolleyes: Young earth creationism is based on a literal interpretation yet old earth isn't. Whether God took a few million years to make a man or a few thousand years to make one, its still creating and therefore creationism. So the answer is yes, not no.
 

godudette

/me cresselias
I find it extremely annoying that so many people jump to the Christianity conclusion whenever 'creation' is mentioned, and attack religion being taught in schools. There are other cultures that have a basis on creation.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Why are teachers forbidden from briefly explaining these major theories to a classroom? You don't have to preach the Gospel to explain creation to a group of children. *rolls eyes*
 
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Why are teachers forbidden from briefly explaining these major theories to a classroom? You don't have to preach the Gospel to explain creation to a group of children. *rolls eyes*

Major theory? LMAO.

The theory of evolution may not be hollistically correct, but it sure has a lot more going for it than a flimsy outdated book.
 

Vaporeon4evr

Cyndakill
Major theory? LMAO.

The theory of evolution may not be hollistically correct, but it sure has a lot more going for it than a flimsy outdated book.

I can't help but to chuckle that he specifically implied there is more to creationism than what the Bible declares, but that you still insist on belittling the "flimsy outdated book" he didn't even defend. I think you exemplify the people he's talking about when he says people jump straight to the Bible and Christianity when they hear the word "creationism".
 
I can't help but to chuckle that he specifically implied there is more to creationism than what the Bible declares, but that you still insist on belittling the "flimsy outdated book" he didn't even defend. I think you exemplify the people he's talking about when he says people jump straight to the Bible and Christianity when they hear the word "creationism".

Yes.
Maybe that's because this country is mostly Christian.
But of course, why would anyone think of that when they fail to see the lack of practicality in teaching "creationism" and evolution side by side in the first place.
 

Yonowaru in Chaos

gaspard de la nuit
I find it extremely annoying that so many people jump to the Christianity conclusion whenever 'creation' is mentioned, and attack religion being taught in schools. There are other cultures that have a basis on creation.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Why are teachers forbidden from briefly explaining these major theories to a classroom? You don't have to preach the Gospel to explain creation to a group of children. *rolls eyes*

It's because creationism isn't science (as we know it currently). There's no point being taught something in a Science class that has yet to be proved or supported by science.
 

Hakajin

Obsessive Shipper
To Christians, perhaps. But we're not debating Christian Creationism. Taken from wikipedia:



Generally speaking, creationism does not contradict evolution.

We're talking about Creationism with a capital "C". In philosophy and religious studies, sure, creationism means any creation myth. But it's also a label for what we're talking about. If it didn't mean a literal interpretation of Genesis, they wouldn't have a different name for theistic evolution or intelligent design.
And which one do you think is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis? Young earth creationism is based on a literal interpretation yet old earth isn't. Whether God took a few million years to make a man or a few thousand years to make one, its still creating and therefore creationism. So the answer is yes, not no.

That's not true. The idea of a young earth is relatively new and came about when that guy, forget his name, tried to figure out the age of the earth by adding the ages of the prophets. Or some such nonsense. It involved geneologies. Genesis doesn't give an age for the earth, it just says that the Creation took seven days. Furthermore, old earth Creationists like to say that since the sun wasn't created on the first day, you can't really say how long a day is.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Why are teachers forbidden from briefly explaining these major theories to a classroom? You don't have to preach the Gospel to explain creation to a group of children. *rolls eyes*

We're talking about two different kinds of theory. A scientific theory is one that has physical evidence and/or logic to back it up. The layman's definition for theory is pretty much synonymous with the word "hypothesis". Well, not exactly, but you get what I mean. It's just a guess at what happened, it doesn't have scientific support.
 
Last edited:

godudette

/me cresselias
Major theory? LMAO.

The theory of evolution may not be hollistically correct, but it sure has a lot more going for it than a flimsy outdated book.

Did you honestly even read the first part of my post? Tch. And yes, you can refer to them as major theories, because they could definitely be classified as the two most prominent theories of the origin of civilization.

But of course, why would anyone think of that when they fail to see the lack of practicality in teaching "creationism" and evolution side by side in the first place.

Besides, there isn't really a precise way to teach creationism, due to the conflict between other cultures' approaches to creation. But, seriously, how hard is it to finish teaching evolution (since it is such a sound theory), followed by mentioning the other circulating theory- that an outside being created the world?

It's just a guess at what happened

So is creationism. Just because the scientific method has the word 'scientific' in it doesn't mean it only applies to science. Creationism lacks the experiment stage of the scientific method. But, then again, so do so many other aspects of science- just because you can't simulate an experiment of the end of the world doesn't mean you can disregard a theory that the sun could destroy the earth someday.

(And no, I do not believe the tidbit about the sun and the earth- I was at a loss for an example of something that could not be tested.)
 
Last edited:
Top