Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution?

[Lucos]

Teacher:Humans evolved from monkeys.
Teacher:God created the earth and everything in it the way it is.

=X

Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
And evolution itself is actually a really in-depth and interesting process, something that's important to know if you're studying biology. It's not like pokémon you know.
Evolution is a part of the world, we should not keep our children purposely ignorant. If we're going to teach people about biology, how nature works, how a baby is made and how it's born, we should teach people evolution as well.

I know what you said was just a joke, but just saying.

 

[the jman]

i dont find evolution that intersting, and please tell me do we evolve from apes, fish, or just a speck of dust containing atoms that form the basic neccecity of life?

 

[Lucos]

We evolved from an ape species that's pretty similar to us. The chimpanzee come from that same distant ancestor.

Although scientists don't know really that much about abiogenesis, it's most likely that a single string of RNA mutated, became self-replicable, which became one-cellar organism, which became small water creatures, who became fish and fish-like reptiles, who became dinosaurs and mammals, who all became the many the different kind of animals we see today, including mammals, including us.

That's basically it, only a hundred times more complex than that. Most of it is covered by science, but there are still a lot of questions to ask about the evolution theory, especially abiogenesis. This is however, not a reason to throw the theory into the garbage can, since we already have a lot of clues and evidence, we find more clues and evidence every day, evolution is already proven and a fact and the evolution theory in general is more plausible than creationism, which doesn't hold any kind of factual evidence at all.

 

[J.T.]

i dont find evolution that intersting

And that's an excuse to not have to learn it?

and please tell me do we evolve from apes, fish, or just a speck of dust containing atoms that form the basic neccecity of life?

We and apes share a common ancestor.

 

[GhostAnime]

and please tell me do we evolve from apes, fish, or just a speck of dust containing atoms that form the basic neccecity of life?

Your last comment really isn't necessary when it comes to talking about Evolution. Ii would help to know what it is first before debating about it.

 

[Deku_Link]

Creationism proponents want creationism to be treated as equal to evolution, without having to go through any testing, methods, or processes that would actually classify creationism as a science.

Just because they want attention doesn't mean they've earned it. Keep creationism within religion classes, please.

 

[Katipunero]

speaking about evolution,pokemon goes against christian religion because of the theory of evolution where as Christianity teaches that we are all created by one God.Some kids out there are even forbidden to do anything with pokemon...that's so sad....

 

[.TraX.]

The key problem with Creationism is that it has no proof, and therefore shouldn't be taught, just like they don't teach you about invisible pink unicorns.

 

[muumajii23]

xD TraX, you win.

On topic: Teaching religious teachings in a public school is ridiculous, unless in a specified religion class.
A) The science of Creationism is... well to put it bluntly, non-existent. What do we have to prove it? The bible. A book, which upon creation could have been, and most likely is, exaggerations of actual events and false stories. Basing theories upon a book that is thousands of years old and then teaching them in a public school is a VERY bad idea.
B) I know that I have been only using Christianity, but teaching about one means that all major religions must be taught about as well. What time will we have left for true sciences?

Oh, and with the humans evolving from monkeys thing, here is a simple, Pokemon-based analogy (That way, everyone knows what I'm talking about. xD).
An Eevee can evolve seven different forms correct? With each one being somewhat similar, yet different. Well it's the same thing with people. An ape species is the base (an Eevee) and we have all of the different, more advanced forms today. Such as humans being Espeon, Gorillas being Flareon, and etc.

Just tell me if that made no sense. xD I'm pretty sure I got my point across.

 

[Lucos]

Oh, and with the humans evolving from monkeys thing, here is a simple, Pokemon-based analogy (That way, everyone knows what I'm talking about. xD).
An Eevee can evolve seven different forms correct? With each one being somewhat similar, yet different. Well it's the same thing with people. An ape species is the base (an Eevee) and we have all of the different, more advanced forms today. Such as humans being Espeon, Gorillas being Flareon, and etc.

Just tell me if that made no sense. xD I'm pretty sure I got my point across.

I really like that analogy you made there.
Most creationist do not understand evolution and think the evolution of life is straight forward, like Charmander -> Charmeleon -> Charizard and Bulbasaur -> Ivysaur -> Venusaur. They say that's not possible and they are right. But they fail to realize that evolution is not straight forward, it's like what you said, the evolutions of Eevee.

Now I think of it, wouldn't it be cool if a pokémon could evolve in, let's say, 3 different evolutions like Eevee, and those evolutions can also evolve in multiple evolutions, That way you could get (for example) 9 (totally) different pokémons out of one single pre-evolution. I think that would be a cool concept for a new generation of pokémon. Who thinks so too?

 

[SlimShady]

Evolution has proof since viruses evolve every day with new immunities. And their offspring have immunities! Therefore, evolution = truth.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Now I think of it, wouldn't it be cool if a pokémon could evolve in, let's say, 3 different evolutions like Eevee, and those evolutions can also evolve in multiple evolutions, That way you could get (for example) 9 (totally) different pokémons out of one single pre-evolution. I think that would be a cool concept for a new generation of pokémon. Who thinks so too?

I think that would be a lovely idea. Some Pokemon who have split evolutions only evolve once. That would be cool if the split evolutions could evolve into more split evolutions, like say two different evolutions of Vaporeon, or Jolteon, or two different evolutions of Slowking, or two different evolutions of Hitmonlee and Hitmontop. But Pokemon fans devoted to the old order would probably dissaprove of it.

However, on the topic of the thread, the way Eevee evolves can hardly be used as indicative evidence that evolution is real...Eevee is a fictional character. : \ Evolution and Creationism, and its many disciplines, however you see and argue it are all theories because there's no way we can know for sure besides identifying and connecting dots. Creationism should not be taught with or instead of evolution because separation of church and state is clearly specified in the consititution. Evolution is not a dogma. Even if it is not proven that it is a more than a theory, it is nonetheless accepted by leading scientists in the world, so it is still necessary to teach it as a matter of current events in the science community. Science class has nothing if it is not about teaching the current dominant scientific ideas in the world.

Of course, Creationism can still be taught as an elective and people can make clubs to promote it, but there is reason contrary to the necessity for it to be taught on a mandatory basis.

 

[J.T.]

Evolution has proof since viruses evolve every day with new immunities. And their offspring have immunities! Therefore, evolution = truth.

You're right, but that's not enough for most people. They claim it's micro-evolution (as if it makes a difference, and honestly it doesn't), and therefore not enough. I've even showed people cases where lizards have evolved into different kinds of lizards practically before our eyes. Not enough; they say they need to see a lizard evolve into a dog or something.

Of course, if you get enough of these changes they call micro-evolution, logically you'll eventually have something that's a new species Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying you can take the recipe for dish A, add/remove/change the ingredients and such, and still have dish A despite having something that's completely different.

 

[muumajii23]

However, on the topic of the thread, the way Eevee evolves can hardly be used as indicative evidence that evolution is real...Eevee is a fictional character. : \

Dude, it was an analogy. Not evidence. xD Just to simplify the concept. I thought I made that clear...

 

[Lucas666]

Too lazy too read everyone elses comments except the first and last few...

Anyways,
Creationism should not be taught alongside evolution. This is because creationism is still believed only because of lies in Catholisism. Years ago Catholics said that the world has only been around for 6,000 years. When the theory of evolution came around, the Catholics would have had to admit that the bible was wrong due to evolution taking millions of years... then the creation of well Creationism!

 

[xXPorygonXx]

Too lazy too read everyone elses comments except the first and last few...

Anyways,
Creationism should not be taught alongside evolution. This is because creationism is still believed only because of lies in Catholisism. Years ago Catholics said that the world has only been around for 6,000 years. When the theory of evolution came around, the Catholics would have had to admit that the bible was wrong due to evolution taking millions of years... then the creation of well Creationism!

You do realize that your post is saying Catholisism is wrong because a theory says so?

I believe Creationism should be one of those extracurricular classes, like foreign language or music. That way, no one's religious believes would be infringed upon, and students interested in Creationism can learn more about it.

Of course, this is assuming there's students interested in it.

 

[J.T.]

You do realize that your post is saying Catholisism is wrong because a theory says so?

Yes, and?

I believe Creationism should be one of those extracurricular classes, like foreign language or music. That way, no one's religious believes would be infringed upon, and students interested in Creationism can learn more about it.

Of course, this is assuming there's students interested in it.

As part of a religion class, it has its place. In a science classroom, no.

 

[xXPorygonXx]

Yes, and?



As part of a religion class, it has its place. In a science classroom, no.

To the first; it was more of a general statement of the arguement's flaws.

To the second; I didn't say that Creationism should be taught in a science classroom. But I do feel it should be allowed as a elective class.

 

[crobatman]

Okay, I am a student (I hope that's fairly obvious). And I was reading about teaching creationism in schools with evolution. This annoyed me for a few reasons. First of all, it doesn't represent other religions at all (wouldn't a devout Buddhist like to know that teachers are trying to convert his/hers children!). Secondly, if I wanted the Bible, I would have gone to a Catholic school. Instead, I hope to be educated in real science, since that's what I hope my parents' taxes pay for. And thirdly, I think Christianity has too much influence already and needs to leave certain things alone.

I understand that evolution would be represented as an "alternative", but that still seems like time would be wasted teaching two things that cancel each other out.

What's your opinion?

You asked for my opinion. I am a creationists, and I believe there are too many holes in the theory of molecules-to-man evolution. Most evidence used to support evolution can be used to support creationism. However, in biology, I think it is important to teach evolution, because everyone is going to be exposed to it. I just would like teachers to be able to show some problems with evolution. If a professor even hints at "design" then they could lose their credibility. It is all political crap.

To the first; it was more of a general statement of the arguement's flaws.

To the second; I didn't say that Creationism should be taught in a science classroom. But I do feel it should be allowed as a elective class.

I would not want Creationism to be taught in a public school setting because a teacher who does not believe could mess it up or not understand what is about. I am a student at Liberty University, and they do teach Young Earth Creation, but these professors believe it. (Also, they are real scientists.) You do not have to believe in evolution to practice real science.

 

[iGaga]

Here is my stance:

Creation and Evolution should be taught side by side. Now, I am not religious, at all. I am basically the opposite of religious. Anyways, I think people should be able to choose for their self whether Creation or Evolution occured. You cant do that when you're only taught Evolution. Also, a lot of people don't have access to a church, so..