Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .


Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment? I am open to observe that?

 

[TNHarley]

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

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

 

[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

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

 

[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

The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .


Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment? I am open to observe that?

Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though

 

[TNHarley]

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

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination

 

[OldLady]

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.

Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.

That is so true. The history of our world is constantly changing as we learn more.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

It doesn't matter how many times you say "creation science" it still isn't a science and never will be.

It is not "backed up by the scientific method", it is pushed by religious fanatics in direct contradiction of it.

No, keep your religious clap-trap out of our schools.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .


Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment? I am open to observe that?

Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though

True enough.

But, if we are not sure, does not mean we should teach every possible option under the sun. . . . or else the Scientologists will want to come into the schools too you know. . . .

 

[captkaos]

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.

You all forget that the Bible, Torah, Koran and other Religious texts were all written by "men" Human men not theoretical supernatural men. IMHO if people want to indoctrinate their children to a particular religion they should do it on their own time not spread un proven theory on those who believe differently or their children. Maybe we should teach the theory that Extra terrestrials manipulated Animal DNA to create modern man, Ridiculous right! Some people don't think so! Keep religion out of Schools!

 

[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

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination

Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Science does not back up the Bible.

 

[Crepitus]

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

The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .


Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment? I am open to observe that?

Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though

Good thing they found it huh?

Fossils discovered in South Africa are the 'missing link' in human evolution, study finds

 

[MisterBeale]

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

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination

Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it

Our species is Homo sapiens sapiens. One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.

Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination

Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it

Our species is Homo sapiens sapiens. One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.

Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online

The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual

 

[Taz]

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". Not even close. Have a link?

 

[anynameyouwish]

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination

Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it

Our species is Homo sapiens sapiens. One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.

Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online

The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual

the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god. That is just a fact.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .


Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment? I am open to observe that?

Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though

Good thing they found it huh?

Fossils discovered in South Africa are the 'missing link' in human evolution, study finds

This leads us to a question of what IS the missing link? We have fossil evidence all along the evolutionary progression. I'm not sure what folks are referring too when this is brought up anymore.

For me, it has always been. . . . .

What caused the explosion of culture. What differentiates modern man from his ancestors? Why all of a sudden did all the tech go Super Nova?


Civilization flourished, not in just one area of the globe, but many, simultaneously, at once. (ON a geologic time scale of course.) But why?


Personally, I think this USA Today piece has it all wrong. The missing link was never between the Australopithecines and the Hominids. It has to do with what caused the creative communal consciousness among the Hominids. It definitely occurred AFTER the neanderthals. On this, Sassy is closer to the truth.

. . . but, it remains an elusive mystery.


Why did modern humans create civilizations? What was that fruit of knowledge, what was the loss of innocence?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you're not willing to give them the option you are

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination

Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it

Our species is Homo sapiens sapiens. One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.

Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online

The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual

the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god. That is just a fact.

And you can't disprove Him...another fact. Now sit down, dumbass

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.

I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,