http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11448423/from/RS.1/
Why are there so many debates regarding whether creationism or intelligent design can be taugh in schools? With so many science topics we learn theories; not facts. So why can't creationism be one of the theories we learn? Nobody is forcing it down students' throats telling them it's a fact. Instead, we are forced evolution theories and the Big Bang theory. Even though those aren't solid facts, it's all we learn in school.
Creationism can coincide with evolution. I believe in creationsim and evolution. I believe that God created everything, but things still evolved. The plants and animals we have today are evolved forms of previous animals. These theories can go along with one another. Yet nobody thinks that. People sometimes assume creationism to say that God created everything the way it is today and that there is no science involved. Well, if they researched more, they would realize that is not the case.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Scientific theories are fundamentally different from religious theories. Scientific theories stem from observing the laws of nature (gravity, conservation of momentum, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. etc.) while religious theories are based on faith and intuition. The fact that the two don't necessarily contradict each other doesn't mean both need to be taught in a science class.
I would usually completely bash your argument, since its totally ideological and from a per conservative perspective. However, I agree with your insight on evolution. Although, something’s in life don’t blend together. I have to agree with the dude that wrote before me. Science class is just fine without religious BS… if you don’t like it, go to Hebrew school, catholic school what ever… Public school is funded by the gov, not the pope.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it - K.Marx
At the end of the book of evolution the author stated that it was not a true event but that it could have logically happened, I think many people overlooked it.
It doesn't matter how "valid" Creationism may or may not be.
What does matter is that Creationism is based on religious doctrines, texts, and beliefs.
Therefore, keep it out of public high school science classrooms. Put it in religious studies classes or something to that effect.
*sigh*
It amazes me how many people have such a distortion of reality. I think there's no truer saying than a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Before I say something specific to this thread, I'm quoting a friend about this general problem that was on another website recently:
"Part of the problem is that they don't realize just how complicated real scientific theories are. I've lost track of the number of imbeciles who truly, sincerely believe that they have a good understanding of thermodynamics because they read roughly one paragraph covering each law of thermodynamics, in a creationist website.
Think about that: a subject which real people have to sweat and toil in university to learn, and these idiots honestly believe they've got it pretty much down pat after one paragraph per law.
Small wonder they think they can reconcile ancient beliefs with modern science: their idea of modern science is so f*$%ing stupid that it really doesn't look that much different from ancient beliefs."
Quick responses:
Scientific theories are NOT what the layman thinks of as a theory. The theory of evolution, just like the theory of gravity, is both a theory AND a fact. When enough of the theory is validated with testing, predictions, corroborating evidence (fossil record, experiments like deliberate mutation, etc), it becomes a FACT. As an amusing aside to this, there is MORE evidence for the theory of evolution than gravity and yet we never hear of anyone trying to argue against THAT one.
You really have to understand science much much more than you apparently do in order to have any input that is of any worth on this matter. Scientists deserve to be respected for the work they do and their EXPERT consensus on their field of study. You suggesting your extremely limited knowledge of the field should be taken as a serious consideration as to what should be criteria for teaching as a curriculum is like a person who reads medical naturopathic magazines lobbying the hospitals to include new age vibrational energy machines someone claims can knit bones together as an equal choice for therapies.
Only religion seems to have this power of bamboozling people into suggesting they have some kind of equal knowledge of truth. It's unbelievable.
Sorry if I'm coming across as abrasive, it's nothing personal. You can actually extrapolate my comments to the general populace who are similarly causing this foolish movement.
Evolution is not a fact - if it were, it would be called the law of evolution.
the general public often misunderstands what the scientific community means by the word "theory". many people view a theory as mere speculation, something that is not yet supported by evidence. this is not what a scientist means by theory. a speculation is called a hypothesis. a theory is a body of knowledge about a given set of related phenomena confirmed by evidence. a law is a generalization about one phenomenon that has been confirmed by evidence. both laws and theories are as close to fact as one gets in science. of course, new disoveries could show any law or theory to be incorrect, and one can never truly prove anything beyond any doubt in science. this does not mean that the theory of evolution is not unilaterally supported by both the evidence and the scientific community.
I agree with the commentor above (Kpartington). I couldn't have put it better myself.
Whether we understand the intricacies and complexities of science or not, it is undeniable that scientific theories are firmly grounded in empirical evidence. For creationism to qualify as a scientific theory, one necessarily MUST prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god, well, scientifically. But religion is fundamentally different because it is based in FAITH. No one should attempt to scientifically prove the existence of a god, because that's not what religion is about at all. Since science and religion are, to a very large extent, mutually exclusive, teaching creationism/intelligent design or any other form of religious theory in a science class would be an insult to both science and religion. I mean, it seems as if the author of this blog is religious, so let me put it this way: HOW DARE YOU, A MERE MORTAL HUMAN BEING, TRY TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!
You know what I mean?
Or not.
The theory of creationism at least has to be acknowledged in classes. In my science books there's always a little something mentioned about it, along with other theories. So I guess you and all the other posters against teaching creationsism would be very upset at the publishers of my book. 70% of the United States population is Christian, so many of these people do believe in creationsim. I think it should be taught at least a little bit, so that kids know that there are other opinions than just evolution and the big bang theory.
There is no foundation for the theory of evolution, and unlike our misguided science expert above suggested, there is no difference between a layman's definition of a theory and the scientific definition. A theory is a hypothesis based on known data, and may or may not be true depending on further discoveries. Further discoveries have proved evolution is impossible, such as the complexity found even in single celled organisms.
A brilliant astro-physicist named Guillermo Gonzales wrote a whole peer-reviewed book about how it can be proven mathematically that the universe was designed. It works. The basic premise is that the likelyhood of a an observer (in this case humans) being placed in an ideal position in the galaxy to observe deep space phenomena is zero. This man is no "ignorant creationist". He is a well respected scientist and a brilliant mind. His theory is summed up in the documentary "The Privileged Planet". Get it; it's an incredible film.
___________________________________________________
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Personally, I think your right. We should all learn bolth ideas, But I think that evolution can only exist on a micro-evolutionary scale.
Ashes to ashes dust to dust, all shall return to the captian crunch.
1- Creatioism should not be taught in science classes because it IS NOT SCIENCE! Get it? Creatioisn is based on Religious Texts. It is a religious beleif that the world was created. Do you want to teach this anywhere, teachi it in a theology class.
2- (This is not directly to you) There are so many facts supporting evolution. I'm not a science expert, so I can't explain it to you very well, but I'm sure someone will take the liberty to explain it.
3- Further more, Evolutionism and Creatiosnism cancel each other out. Evolution= The species of the Earth slowly evolved to their present state. Creationism= God made the world exactly how it is, no questions asked.
4- The chance of us existing where we do now is very small. The chance of us existing anywhere is very small. The chance of some super-powerful deity willing everything into existence is so unlikely that it comes as close to impossible as possible. If you took that idea and substituted The Giant Flying King of Grasshopper Land for god, no one would beleive it. So why do we beleive it with god? Anyway, who says that we're at an ideal loccation for observing the Universe. Have you been anywher else so that you can compare it? Has anyone.
Sorry I replied to the SnoopyDaniels.
Totally agree.
x: Sammy
Intellegent Design (Creationism) cannot be taught in a science class. If your school offers a class on theology (which I don't have a problem with as long as all religions are given equal treatment or their own class), then Creationism can be taught.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Creationism and intelligent design are based on religious theories. I haven't heard anyone say that they can prove any part of a religous theory. To me it's nothing more than mythology. It shouldn't be included in Science curriculum because of this.
True, you've got a good point.