Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.

When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.

[Jolt]

When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.

Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.

[rvg]

Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.

Doubting the obvious is okay. After all, without the tinfoil hatters and flat earthers the world would be a less exciting place to live in. Now, feeding this garbage to children, THAT is a problem.