Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution?

[Vaporeon4evr]

All you evolutionists are going to hell. I hope you have fun (I hear that Luau Tuesday now serves punch to the first 50 guests).

Well, I suppose I ought to say for the fiftieth time that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, and that I don't really see what the fuss is about. Really, it's just a perpetual case of creationists blindly defend their religion, while "enlightened" atheists bash them for believing in something "not validated by the unquestionable authority of science".

 

[J.T.]

Creation and Evolution should be taught side by side. Now, I am not religious, at all. I am basically the opposite of religious.

You mean atheistic?

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.

If I were to come up with a theory that an invisible unicorn crapped out the planet, should my belief be humored in science classes? I mean, I'm following the same logic as you.

Also, a lot of people don't have access to a church, so..

Many of them have access to parents, friends, elective classes, etc.

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.

Example?

If a professor even hints at "design" then they could lose their credibility. It is all political crap.

Well, if they could hint at design while simultaneously hinting at evidence for design and against evolution, maybe that wouldn't be the case.

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.

You can be a scientist and believe in young earth creation, true, but you have to ignore veritable mountains of evidence to the contrary.

 

[crobatman]

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..

Well, that is sad because churches are supposed to access the people.

 

[Carlisle]

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..

Except there is no logic in that. Evolution does not cancel out Creationism. Nor does evolution explain why we are here. It is a scientific theory, which is why it belongs in a Biology class. Religion has nothing to do with science and should never enter the science room. If people don't have access to a church, that's their problem.

 

[GhostAnime]

if somebody doesn't have access to church that just means their family isn't really all that religious/or just prefer not to go.

i really doubt the reason anybody doesn't know anything of creationism is because of church. people speak about God all the time outside of it.

and they do teach Young Earth Creation, but these professors believe it. (Also, they are real scientists.)

Too bad 99% of the other scientists disagree with them and they probably aren't taken seriously in the scientific community.

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.

Lol do you even know what you're talking about? What the hell is 'molecules-to-man evolution'? Then you turn around and say "well if it's true it always supports creationism!"

It would help to know more about Evolution before debating about it.

Evolution is pretty much true. There is no debate in it about whether all animals share a common ancestry; this is obvious. It's so obvious in all areas of science that it's not even funny. I don't know a single hole out there that contradicts all animals being related. You can contradict fossils, dates; whatever. You can't contradict all animals having a common ancestor.

The THEORIES come in when you talk about which animals share a common ancestry, or which animal came before what. Those the theories about Evolution; and ultimately, it will always be a theory, because theories naturally don't become laws anyway.

 

[Shiny hunter Reece]

I think both evolution and creationism should be taught.

Creationism is part of religious education. In my school, you did a brief introduction to creationism, that god created the world in seven days, let there be light and that sort of stuff.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has pretty much been proven fact by scientific research.
And that's why I think that both should be taught.

 

[ChedWick]

I think both evolution and creationism should be taught.

Creationism is part of religious education. In my school, you did a brief introduction to creationism, that god created the world in seven days, let there be light and that sort of stuff.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has pretty much been proven fact by scientific research.
And that's why I think that both should be taught.

But you don't really justify why they should be taught along side each other... like in the same class room.

 

[J.T.]

I think both evolution and creationism should be taught.

Creationism is part of religious education.

Which is why it should be taught in a religion class, not a science class.

 

[Aksyel]

Except there is no logic in that. Evolution does not cancel out Creationism. Nor does evolution explain why we are here. It is a scientific theory, which is why it belongs in a Biology class. Religion has nothing to do with science and should never enter the science room. If people don't have access to a church, that's their problem.

Apparently you didn't read the post in its entirety, this is because all I see in that post is logic.

It says in the post they the kids should learn both so they can decide which they believe in. Or, if they believe in both. (i.e. God created everything but let evolution take its course.) It says no where, nor does it have anythign to do with which one is better because that's completely up to the interpretation of the a person.

Which is the best way, that's what my school did, with parental permission.

Spoiler: If you click this and you are sensitive about your religion, you are an idiot.

And everyone who was able to do that is now Atheist/believe in the combination of Evolution and Creationism. I find this interesting.

 

[J.T.]

It says in the post they the kids should learn both so they can decide which they believe in. Or, if they believe in both. (i.e. God created everything but let evolution take its course.) It says no where, nor does it have anythign to do with which one is better because that's completely up to the interpretation of the a person.

Which is the best way, that's what my school did, with parental permission.

Once again, see my comparison above. If I were to come up with a theory stating that an invisible unicorn crapped out the planet, would you have to teach that too?

After all, it's best that kids learn all ideas about the origins of the earth and its species. It'd be discrimination to not teach about the invisible unicorn theory!

 

[Aksyel]

Once again, see my comparison above. If I were to come up with a theory stating that an invisible unicorn crapped out the planet, would you have to teach that too?

After all, it's best that kids learn all ideas about the origins of the earth and its species. It'd be discrimination to not teach about the invisible unicorn theory!

...That is a statement that lacks so much logic.

You only teach the most recognized theories (and supported) of how we came into existence. Not all theories.

 

[J.T.]

...That is a statement that lacks so much logic.

You only teach the most recognized theories (and supported) of how we came into existence. Not every theories.

Right. Evolution has so much more evidence going for it than creationism (which, honestly, only really has the Bible going for it), so would it not be logical to teach evolution over creationism?

 

[Orihime]

Right. Evolution has so much more evidence going for it than creationism (which, honestly, only really has the Bible going for it), so would it not be logical to teach evolution over creationism?

ACTUALLY, there has been some research, and several incidents in the old testament were proven to be scientifically plausable. Everything from the blacking of the sun to the death of the first born son to the parting of the red sea was scientifically proven to be possible.

 

[Aksyel]

Right. Evolution has so much more evidence going for it than creationism (which, honestly, only really has the Bible going for it), so would it not be logical to teach evolution over creationism?

"You only teach the most recognized theories"

Also, I never said it wasn't logical or illogical to teach one over the other. I said it was logical to teach them equally. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[ChedWick]

...That is a statement that lacks so much logic.

You only teach the most recognized theories (and supported) of how we came into existence. Not all theories.

Funny how you keep talking about logic but have none yourself.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Don't put words in my mouth.

He's not. Hence him phrasing his last post as a question, and simply following on from what you said in a logical matter.

I said it was logical to teach them equally.

You said it only made sense to teach the theories with the most backing. Logically then we should teach evolution over creationism because it does have more backing, especially more scientific backing, hence teaching it in science class.

 

[xXPorygonXx]

Right. Evolution has so much more evidence going for it than creationism (which, honestly, only really has the Bible going for it), so would it not be logical to teach evolution over creationism?

And? Not everything taught has to be scientifically proven. In calculus, the square root of -1 doesn't technically even exist, yet we're taught it.

 

[Lorde]

I do not think religion has a place in the modern classroom to be honest.

No I don't think Creationism should be taught along side Evolution.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Not everything taught has to be scientifically proven.

Of course not, but in a science class what is taught must have a basis in scientific methodology and be necessary for a greater understanding of the subject. Evolution has both of those traits. Creationism does not. It does not have a scientific methodology, indeed rather the contrary, it has a religious one. It also does not help in the understanding of the development of biological functions (at least, not how they are understood today) and thus has nothing to add to the study of biology. Likewise evolution really should not be taught in a religious studies class whereas creationism should.

 

[J.T.]

And? Not everything taught has to be scientifically proven. In calculus, the square root of -1 doesn't technically even exist, yet we're taught it.

I apologize for expecting something taught in a SCIENCE class to be scientifically proven.

ACTUALLY, there has been some research, and several incidents in the old testament were proven to be scientifically plausable. Everything from the blacking of the sun

Like an eclipse? As in, a perfectly natural event?

to the death of the first born son

Yeah, I don't think death is much of a stretch. It could just as easily have been a disease or invasion. Unless every single firstborn son in the area dropped dead with absolutely no explanation, it's not a large stretch.

to the parting of the red sea was scientifically proven to be possible.

********. Show me how it is possible for ONE MAN to part an entire sea, or show me some sources to that effect.

"You only teach the most recognized theories"

Okay, there are two major theories as to what is keeping us on the planet. The first, obviously, is the theory of gravity. However, there are some who believe God is doing it Himself through some force other than gravity. I believe this is one of the most widely-accepted theories in regards to this case aside from gravity.

So why don't we teach the second most recognized theory in this case? Because it's a crock. There's no proof for it. Such is the case with creationism - being the second most widely believed theory in its scientific area doesn't count for anything when it's still got nothing going for it. If my aforementioned invisible unicorn theory got more followers than creationism does, it would not be any more valid. It would still be a load of crap, there'd just be more people who believe it.