Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Navaros]

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

[Whacker]

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma, hence evolution is != religion. Evolution and Darwinism have already been proven in several instances, this one has been provided for your enjoyment and perusal as it is the only one I remember off the top of my head.

[Navaros]

They have never been proven.

Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them. This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong. Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":

Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.

[Whacker]

They have never been proven.

Sorry, again you must be confused, I just showed you evidence that it has been proven. There are numerous other instances but my aging brain is failing me this evening.

Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them.

You missed the point entirely. The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments. It'd be like taking a human to the martian atmosphere and demanding they evolve immediately to compensate.

This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong.

Again incorrect, please see above. And for the record:

Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":

Mr. Taylor is a complete and total joke and a farce, and has absolutely 0 business calling himself a scientist. I am familiar with some of his "work", and it flies (pun???) completely in the face of several proven tenants and theories. He's in the same category as Jack Chick, peddling dogma as if it were scientific fact. One final request, please don't go down the "it's just a theory" road, that's easily the most overused false cliche by creationists.

Pleasant evening to you.

[Navaros]

The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments.

That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.

What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.

What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.

Uhh....there is plenty of evidence of organisms evolving into higher forms of life.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Teaching Creationism is a possibility.

However, if you teach Creationism, you must also teach the Greek Mythological Model of Universal Creation, i.e. The Eternal Supergod Chaos fathering the heavens and the earth Gaia, then having sex (presumably) with his/her daughter in order to produce a plethora of gods who had sex with their siblings and declared war on their children, and fought an epic battle which shook the earth, (their mother), who has been shouldered since the beginning of time on the back of Atlas, even though he is an ancestor of Gaia. You must also teach about Zeus' numerous and graphic sexual conquests, including mating with animals.

Let's not forget to include the Roman models, perhaps other pagan deities as well, Norse mythology, animism, shamanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Native American folklore, African mysticism, Emperor worship, Ancestor worship, cannibalism and human sacrifice.

After all, why include only one belief system? If you teach one, you should teach them all. Including Scientology and Mormonism, as well as belief systems which have not been outlawed that are still referred to as cults.

And if we are going to present all of this as the viable alternative to current scientific findings about the rational nature of the universe, we must teach all of them as science as well, thereby negating the concept of the separation between rational thought and irrational belief.




I say it's a brilliant idea, and I wholeheartedly support it, because nothing would make me happier than to openly and publicly defy each and every nonscientific theory in a debate sponsored by a school system. The rational mind begs for the chance to challenge this nonsense in front of the impressionable children they might otherwise have claimed as their own.

[Jolt]

There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.

...Wait, what? Are you saying what I learned in Archaeology, and those Archaeologists who specialize in the Origins of the Human Race, are either all wrong or lieing?

Truth is that all species mutate, and modern humans aren't any special in that matter. Two hundred thousand years ago we were different. Not only that, we have proof. It's something called material culture. Two hundred thousand years ago there weren't humans like us but there were some species who had similarities with us, and proof comes not only through bones, which thanks to genetics, biology, chemistry, physics can relay us a lot of valuable information, but also comes through what those humans built back then (Stone tools, millions of tools; And these are available in such a number that Archaeologists could even classify them in specific group-types), which become gradually more complex and hard to make as time passes by, that coupled with biological evolution (Once again shown by bone material culture) ultimatly shows the human evolution in intelligence terms, when it comes to utilities. Fortunatly, we aren't the only species that is known to evolve.

[Mooks]

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

I want to throw "The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins at you.