Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Kralizec]

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

Most western states separate church and state (except the UK, Denmark and a couple of others) wich doesn't entail more than a strict seperation between institutions as such. Many European countries have christian-democratic parties. From a strictly "democratic" point of view I don't see why opinions inspired by religious conviction should be considered inadmissible beforehand. But then again I never claimed that democracies always make for rational decisions.

Only a handful of states seperate religion as such from the state or even all public life- besides France and Turkey I can't think of any.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.

[Lord Winter]

I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.

Its interesting, as a society we've been valuing less concrete, more personal ideas, the whole post modernist, the interpretation is inside you, everyone's different kind of things. Yet at the same time we still have the rigid logic of the enlightenment drilled into us, look at some of threads we had about religon or even global warming. People demand hard facts and logic to back up everything. Its an interesting contrast, and weird to think that two opposites exist at the same time. That kind of double standard may be the reason why there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. It seems that you either have to be a hardcore atheist or a complete religious fanatic these days.

[tibilicus]

Creationism in my opinion has a place in schools but not in science lessons. Due to the fact it's religion it should be touched on in some sort of religious class. I'm not sure how the USA school system works but I guess if it's like ours over here you should have some form of religious education. Simply bring up the subject of creationism in these classes.

[Cronos Impera]

The problem with Evolutionism taught individually is that you oversimplify the evolution of the genome and its role.
It's just like saying "Put a couple of dead branches and some mortar in space and let them assamble into a skyscraper".
Science teaches you the rules, Theology explains the meaning of these rules.
You can't survive without knowing the rules, nor without knowing the meaning of these rules.
No matter how much people would try, you can't mess with the genome like with a string of beads.Many functions of the DNA and ARN have been mapped but try building one out of simple aminoacids and you start getting headaches.
They coul'n't reconstruct the DNA of a Thylocene let alone build an entire chain of moleculesas complex as nuclear acids.
So by working through Evolution one can only grasp the silouetthe of a Creator behind all.

[Tribesman]

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams.

Wow thats shocking , you mean that in a science exam you had to write about science not religion .
Whatever next , I suppose the cruel teachers would have failed you if you had answered a question on Shakespear with a piece about the ming dynasty

[Askthepizzaguy]

Tribesman's bluntness nonwithstanding, I agree with him.

If I had to take an exam on world religions, I would have to learn about them and answer most of the questions correctly.

If I had to take an exam on science, I might have to learn about Darwinism, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution is science, and creationism is not. The only way you can possibly believe otherwise is if you are woefully uninformed, unfamiliar with the definitions of science and of faith, or you know it's true and are too stubborn to admit it.

[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.

[Pannonian]

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.

I'm sure the examining boards would have accepted a suitably sourced and explained answer of another flavour if Darwinian evolutionary theory wasn't to your taste. You'd need to demonstrate a clear understanding of what you're talking about though, and not just positing unsupported ideas.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Frankly, if we would find a 6000 year old ark on top of a mountain, I'd be willing to listen. But so far, lots of hoaxes, and zero science.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.

[Pannonian]

Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.

I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.

[Navaros]

I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.

darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.

All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.

[Ronin]

i am still hoping to see american schools see the light and start teaching the true "stork theory" for conception.....if you´re gonna go with creationism I think it will fit thematically.

[Kralizec]

@Navaros: just curious, how come you don't post for weeks or even months in a row yet show up almost immediately whenever evolution-creationism is debated?

[Papewaio]

darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.

All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.

DNA

[Ironside]

Personally, one thing I do really find funny about creationism is that by looking on the evidence (aka all living beings) you can conclude that the entity the did this either was brilliant engineer with very limited tools or was an idiotic engineer.
Basically it built working stuff from a junkyard and not as factory as you could expect. The side effect of this is that some systems are horribly impractical.

Anyway to put it simply, evolution theory is the model that best explains a wast amount of data from multiple scientiffic fields and has no serious contenders.
While the thesis that someone created everything and put a lot of evidence there to confuse us cannot be disproven, neither can the fact that this world and everything on it is just something came to life thanks to my thoughts.
As such, I do demand proper worship or tribute, or you will awake post mortem in a place that makes hell feel like a pleasant vacation.

[Askthepizzaguy]

When something cannot possibly be disproven, it ceases to count as knowledge.

[Sigurd]

When something cannot possibly be disproven, it ceases to count as knowledge.

Can you even define knowledge?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Without knowledge, there is no definition.

[Sigurd]

Without knowledge, there is no definition.

If there is no definition of knowledge, we should assume there is no knowledge?

[Askthepizzaguy]

knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.

I choose the more rational interpretation, and assume truth exists and that knowledge of that truth is possible. Therefore, we can define things based upon knowledge of the truth.

A sphere is round. Without objective truth, common perceptions, evidence, and proof, I cannot make a definition of a sphere. But because there is truth, there are common perceptions, and we can gather evidence, and arrive at a conclusion. As such, definitions flow from knowledge of truth.

If there are conflicting truths, they weren't true to begin with.

[KukriKhan]

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.

[Askthepizzaguy]

We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.

That sounds all mystical and deep and all but it overlooks the obvious assumption that you know that you cannot know.

Obviously, that means you think you know something, and are arguing that it is possible to know something, because you're attempting to convince someone of your viewpoint.

Basically, it's self-defeating logic. I didn't have to come up with a rebuttal, because it crumbles under it's own rules.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Fascinating concepts to debate of course, but off-topic.

I'm telling the moderator on you, KukriKhan and Sigurd.

[Sigurd]

Derailing or not.

knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.

Let's go back to the beginning of this.

You said:
[rephrased]
When something is not disprovable, it is not knowledge.

I said:
[rephrased]
What is knowledge?

You said:
[rephrased]
Knowledge precedes definition.

I said:
[rephrased]
If we do not know what knowing is, do we even have knowledge at all?

You said:
[rephrased]
I am not going to define knowledge and will continue expanding on this common assumption of knowledge as if we have agreed on a definition already.

I say:
Define knowledge before continuing. What is knowledge?

[Askthepizzaguy]

There is a dispute between philosophers about what the definition of knowledge is.

However, a dictionary entry on knowledge reads:

(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>

There are many different uses of the word. To limit the discussion to what I am referring to, knowledge is that which is believed, true, and justified. In other words, factual information that we are consciously aware of.

If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.

Ergo, knowledge. Those who dispute whether or not knowledge exists dispute whether or not they themselves exist. And when one does that, I question whether or not they steer away from a toddler they see walking in the street. Because, after all, who knows whether or not that child exists?

I prefer the rational opinion on knowledge, which is that it exists and we can perceive it. The opposing opinion is self-defeating and inherently worthless, because even if someone knew that there is no such thing as knowledge, they would ipso facto be completely wrong at the same time.

Ah, paradoxes. Sometimes they help us prove what cannot be true. Hence, knowledge.

[Jolt]

DNA

Pwned. It's really all there is to it.
Even if we had no archaeological evidence about past species which are clearly (e.g. Scientifically proven) linked with us, why do we have closer DNA similarities with species (Simians, most notably the living species Pan Paniscus, who shares 98% of our DNA) who coincidently have biological, physical, psychological and social similarities with us (humans) then any other species? Is it because God (Maybe it was Zeus? Odin? Osiris?) wished us to have more furry and retarded brother? Pah-leeze. We have evidence, facts. Creationism has...Nothing. Creationism is a story, which cannot ever be proven. Evolutionism on the other hand, (I can speak at least in the Evolution of the Human Species) is well advanced, and although it still has many missing links, actually defines a plausible evolution based on scientific evidence. Creationism is just one big missing link, meaning it is a fairy tale story, created in a time where humans had no way to trace back their past.
Believing in Creationism, James Ussher using the Bible and various religious documents to trace back to the date where the world was created, he came up with a date: 4004 B.C.
Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.

The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.

Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.

Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.

One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.