Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[james bond]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

 

[MisterBeale]

"The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific."

. . . but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?

 

[bullwinkle]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"? All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends. Among American Indians alone there are many. I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes. We get ours from the Torah. My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'. This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic. Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.

 

[TNHarley]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

 

[cnm]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.

America deserves this.

 

[james bond]

but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?

You didn't read my links nor watch the vid.

 

[OldLady]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

The couple of times I've talked to students about early hominds, "Neanderthal man" and the theory of all humans evolving and spreading out of Africa, I explain that there is another belief system by some Christians, that of Creationism, which holds that God created the world.

But that's pretty much all I know about it, so if a student ever asked for more information about it, I'd have to refer them to their minister.

 

[james bond]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"? All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends. Among American Indians alone there are many. I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes. We get ours from the Torah. My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'. This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic. Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.

I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".

 

[james bond]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

That's what we're doing now. We are teaching faith-based science. You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.

 

[james bond]

I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".

Did you read my link or watch the video? Your assertion is meaningless.

 

[rightwinger]

Creation should be taught as a fantasy

 

[OldLady]

I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".

Did you read my link or watch the video? Your assertion is meaningless.

I've read some of the arguments for Creationism, and they get pretty deep in the weeds about dating techniques, DNA testing, etc. as well as the philosophical arguments for God. K-12 doesn't get into that kind of detail. It is mostly a refutation of the techniques used to date and analyze artifacts. I'm not sure how well a K-12 student would grasp a lot of that. Just telling them that God created the world because science is all wet isn't much of a curriculum.

 

[bullwinkle]

The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.

Your whole basis is built on sand, james.
The New Testament is the Christian one. The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible. Although I agree with Paul when he spoke about ignoring the Old Testament to his questioners. He said 'if the root dies, can the branch survive?' However, mt point is..what science tells you Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, or about Ishmael's exile? What science proves the sun stood still for Joshua? And then there's the oldest question of all...who did Cain marry out there in the land of Nod? And where's that famous Tower of Babel where in the twinkling of an eye, several languages were created that other groups could not understand?
I love these old tales, and even learned from many of them, but....science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".

Did you read my link or watch the video? Your assertion is meaningless.

Did you read my link or watch the video?

Do they give the correct definition of scientific method?

Your assertion is meaningless.

What, you're the only one who gets to do that?

 

[MisterBeale]

but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?

You didn't read my links nor watch the vid.

Of course not. Not when you make such a silly declarative statement.

I am a person of great faith, yet, I also believe that the collective consciousness is the prime mover.

You cannot make such a statement, and then have us all take the reverse as a matter of fact.

Do you even know what science is?

 

[MisterBeale]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

That's what we're doing now. We are teaching faith-based science. You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.

 

[MisterBeale]

The OP is having a difficult time with what is "scientific" i.e. what is empirical, and what is not.

Synonyms of empirical | Thesaurus.com

empirical
[ em-pir-i-kuhl ]SEE DEFINITION OF empirical

• experimental
• factual
• observational
• empiric
• experient
• experiential
• observed
• pragmatic
• provisional
• speculative
  
  
  

And the opposite?

Antonyms for empirical

• conjectural
• hypothetical
• impractical
• theoretic
• theoretical
• unobserved
• unproved

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creationism does not hold up to the scientific method, sorry. The scientific method doesn’t require the utilization of faith. It should be taught thru private/religious institutions, not at institutions funded by my tax dollars.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.

Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.

Give them options