Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".

I've read many said the same thing of you and agree with them.

Well, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink!

 

[LittleNipper]

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:

 

[Hollie]

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:

When was Ben Stein assigned the title of "Grand Master of All Things secularism and pervasive atheistic opinions"?

 

[LittleNipper]

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:

When was Ben Stein assigned the title of "Grand Master of All Things secularism and pervasive atheistic opinions"?

When was anybody? Mr. Stein is expressing his opinion and I concur with his assessment. The science community has been hijacked by authorities who want no part of anything or one that will undermine their position and control.

 

[Hollie]

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:

When was Ben Stein assigned the title of "Grand Master of All Things secularism and pervasive atheistic opinions"?

When was anybody?

So what exactly is all the fuss about some claimed major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion?

What exactly is a pervasive atheistic opinion?

 

[ReinyDays]

What lab experiment can we conduit in the classroom that demonstrates God? ... a "hypothesis" that can't be tested isn't a hypothesis ... it's philosophy ...

 

[LittleNipper]

What lab experiment can we conduit in the classroom that demonstrates God? ... a "hypothesis" that can't be tested isn't a hypothesis ... it's philosophy ...

Say a fellow student is very ill and the doctors give a 50/50 chance for survival (maybe even less than that). One could certainly encourage individuals to seek GOD's intervention on behalf of such an individual and note any effects or mood changes. Another way would be to encourage divine guidance in problem understanding/solving. Note which group more quickly solves the issues at hand.

Obviously, a scientist/professor claiming that life originated on earth by way of crystal formations and or lighting striking water. but cannot demonstrate it, is also quite the philosopher. Yet, such individuals are very free in secular educational institutions to use their students as their personal audience.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:

That depends on the type of rock. Igneous rocks are easily eroded. Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks takes much longer.

 

[LittleNipper]

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:

That depends on the type of rock. Igneous rocks are easily eroded. Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks takes much longer.

Kind of like natural concrete...

 

[esalla]

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

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science. The students will be able to decide for themselves. It's creation vs. evolution. For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. It can be proven by the scientific method. Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public. Thus, you are wrong. Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts. It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel. No afterlife.

You are not a scientist, you are an uneducated schizzo who because of his delusions of grandeur believes themself to be the savior of reality

You are spinning in circles chasing your own tail

Do tell us about your pending scientific theories though as Rodney Dangerfield has passed

 

[Hollie]

What lab experiment can we conduit in the classroom that demonstrates God? ... a "hypothesis" that can't be tested isn't a hypothesis ... it's philosophy ...

Say a fellow student is very ill and the doctors give a 50/50 chance for survival (maybe even less than that). One could certainly encourage individuals to seek GOD's intervention on behalf of such an individual and note any effects or mood changes. Another way would be to encourage divine guidance in problem understanding/solving. Note which group more quickly solves the issues at hand.

Obviously, a scientist/professor claiming that life originated on earth by way of crystal formations and or lighting striking water. but cannot demonstrate it, is also quite the philosopher. Yet, such individuals are very free in secular educational institutions to use their students as their personal audience.

Prayer, lighting incense, rattling bones or reading tea leaves have never been shown to cure disease.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief." A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it. The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact. The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.

 

[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.

The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief." A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it. The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact. The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.

You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods. "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."

OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing. The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up. Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis. Thus, you are wrong.

The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time. From God himself. This is not a belief, but a finding. The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.

 

[Hollie]

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.

The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief." A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it. The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact. The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.

You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods. "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."

OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing. The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up. Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis. Thus, you are wrong.

The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time. From God himself. This is not a belief, but a finding. The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.

The gods didn't write the Bible so it is obviously not an autobiography.

 

[esalla]

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.

The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief." A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it. The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact. The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.

You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods. "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."

OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing. The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up. Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis. Thus, you are wrong.

The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time. From God himself. This is not a belief, but a finding. The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.

The bible never mentions the universe

So what you think is the bible is really mad magazine

 

[james bond]

The gods didn't write the Bible so it is obviously not an autobiography.

God wrote the first Bible and his autobiography. Satan wrote the Antibible and maybe it is his autobiography, i.e. no God, with Evolution; he started with a Scottish farmer named James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and then Charles Darwin. Since the 1850s, he eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews, public schools including high schools, colleges, and universities, and science museums. That is a heck of a piece of work!!!

 

[james bond]

The bible never mentions the universe

Junior, just let the adults do the talking and go play in the toilet.

 

[Hollie]

The gods didn't write the Bible so it is obviously not an autobiography.

God wrote the first Bible and his autobiography. Satan wrote the Antibible and maybe it is his autobiography, i.e. no God, with Evolution; he started with a Scottish farmer named James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and then Charles Darwin. Since the 1850s, he eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews, public schools including high schools, colleges, and universities, and science museums. That is a heck of a piece of work!!!

Suggesting your gods wrote the Bible is in conflict with the accounts of various authors who wrote various parts of the Bible. Can you identify any evidence to suggest that a Bible written by the gods magically appeared in written form?

You're adding the usual slogans about some event you insist happened in the 1850's that caused fear and superstition to yield to knowledge and learning. Fear and superstition gave way to science exploration in the 1850's. Religious fundamentalists (you call them creationists), eliminated themselves from science as the discipline of the Scientific Method left less and less room for magic and supernaturalism.

 

[james bond]

Suggesting your gods wrote the Bible is in conflict with the accounts of various authors who wrote various parts of the Bible.

The various authors is how the ancient kings verified it and we can do the same except we have modern science to compare it to I should say "had" because science has took a detour since the 1850s. Now, if today's science of evolution is observable and testable, then that would make it a super strong case for evolution, but none of it is. Nothing can be seen nor tested from millions and billions of years ago as rocks and fossils would have weathered and aged to fubar or returned to dust as we like to call it. The method of testing isn't in question, but the assumptions made for it. If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.

 

[Hollie]

Suggesting your gods wrote the Bible is in conflict with the accounts of various authors who wrote various parts of the Bible.

The various authors is how the ancient kings verified it and we can do the same except we have modern science to compare it to I should say "had" because science has took a detour since the 1850s. Now, if today's science of evolution is observable and testable, then that would make it a super strong case for evolution, but none of it is. Nothing can be seen nor tested from millions and billions of years ago as rocks and fossils would have weathered and aged to fubar or returned to dust as we like to call it. The method of testing isn't in question, but the assumptions made for it. If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.

It's nonsensical to claim on the one hand that the gods wrote the bible and then, on the other hand, acknowledge many, unknown authors. Yes, when we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.

Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe.

Yes, things can be seen and tested from millions and billions of years ago. The cosmic background radiation has been measured and we can see light from billions of years in the past. Yes, you deny that. You have a right to deny reality.