Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[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.

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

Mad magazine...no. A collection of writings that were approved by early Christian clerics, while other writings were rejected. All of these writings were written by individuals who sought to unite, as well as control the public behavior in some fashion. In these writings, they interspersed actual events that had been known to have occurred (wars, et cetera), with fictional (parting of Red Sea, the Ark) events meant to awe the listeners.
As for Jesus, all writings accepted into the New Testament, were written centuries after his death, thus it is nothing more than hearsay. The story of "the Messiah," was told and attributed to others, before he was born.
Bottom line, at least in my humble opinion, is that there was not, is not and never will be some Messiah. What we see is what we have. The only things we don't see with our eyes are molecules, sub-atomic particles and that asteroid that is hurtling through the universe and destined to flatten this place. All else is fiction.

 

[Moonglow]

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,

Which one?

 

[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

Mad magazine...no. A collection of writings that were approved by early Christian clerics, while other writings were rejected. All of these writings were written by individuals who sought to unite, as well as control the public behavior in some fashion. In these writings, they interspersed actual events that had been known to have occurred (wars, et cetera), with fictional (parting of Red Sea, the Ark) events meant to awe the listeners.
As for Jesus, all writings accepted into the New Testament, were written centuries after his death, thus it is nothing more than hearsay. The story of "the Messiah," was told and attributed to others, before he was born.
Bottom line, at least in my humble opinion, is that there was not, is not and never will be some Messiah. What we see is what we have. The only things we don't see with our eyes are molecules, sub-atomic particles and that asteroid that is hurtling through the universe and destined to flatten this place. All else is fiction.

Actually Matthew was chosen by jesus because he was an educated tax collector reformed. The 4 main text of the new testament were written in the lifetimes of matthew, mark luke and john. I do not put much faith in the bible per say like the loony who believes that noah collected 2 of every animal which is goofy doo doo

 

[Wuwei]

If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.

That is not true. It has been shown that the readings you are referring to are nothing but instrument background noise. Even if it weren't it shows up to 100,000 years (machines with the lowest noise level). That is well beyond the creationists 6,000 years.

Radiological dating of diamonds and meteors with longer lived isotopes give ages in the billions of years. You already know that and it is disingenuous that you fail to mention that.
.

 

[esalla]

If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.

That is not true. It has been shown that the readings you are referring to are nothing but instrument background noise. Even if it weren't it shows up to 100,000 years (machines with the lowest noise level). That is well beyond the creationists 6,000 years.

Radiological dating of diamonds and meteors with longer lived isotopes give ages in the billions of years. You already know that and it is disingenuous that you fail to mention that.
.

Is this the schizzo argues with the schizzo show?

The Earth is 48,000 years old, the jehovah across the street told me, right before I punted him, he never came back

 

[james bond]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method,

Which one?

The two greatest supernatural events humans have went through are Noah's Flood and The Resurrection. Noah's Flood is a true event in which Noah's family told about and it got passed down throughout history. This is why we have flood stories from around the world. We also have plate tectonics which show how one land mass of Pangea separated into the seven continents we have today. Plate tectonics also show how the Himalayas and Mt. Everest came to be. We also can observe it caused dinosaur fossils to be scattered across the middle and western parts of the US.

 

[alang1216]

The two greatest supernatural events humans have went through are Noah's Flood and The Resurrection. Noah's Flood is a true event in which Noah's family told about and it got passed down throughout history. This is why we have flood stories from around the world. We also have plate tectonics which show how one land mass of Pangea separated into the seven continents we have today. Plate tectonics also show how the Himalayas and Mt. Everest came to be. We also can observe it caused dinosaur fossils to be scattered across the middle and western parts of the US.

At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone. Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection. I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.

 

[progressive hunter]

At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone. Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection. I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.

unless everyone but the few died in the flood,,

got any names for those that saw elvis's resurrection??

 

[alang1216]

unless everyone but the few died in the flood,,

Thanks for making my point. Everyone but the few died in the flood and we have flood stories from around the world. Jesus was executed in the center of the Western world and almost nobody noticed. Curious I think.

got any names for those that saw elvis's resurrection??

 

[progressive hunter]

Thanks for making my point. Everyone but the few died in the flood and we have flood stories from around the world. Jesus was executed in the center of the Western world and almost nobody noticed. Curious I think.

I like how you left out a lot of details,,

 

[westwall]

At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone. Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection. I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.

It was. There are flood histories from all over the world, and across cultures.

 

[james bond]

At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone. Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection. I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.

You would've noticed it, but wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it. God's wrath killed every living creature, but Noah's family and guests. The remaining told us of the flood and this is what was passed down. If it was a true event, then it would've lasted and gone around the world. If it was a fairy tale or local flood, then it wouldn't have gone around the world and have been forgotten. However, we do have evolution, a fairy tale.

 

[Lysistrata]

The two greatest supernatural events humans have went through are Noah's Flood and The Resurrection. Noah's Flood is a true event in which Noah's family told about and it got passed down throughout history. This is why we have flood stories from around the world. We also have plate tectonics which show how one land mass of Pangea separated into the seven continents we have today. Plate tectonics also show how the Himalayas and Mt. Everest came to be. We also can observe it caused dinosaur fossils to be scattered across the middle and western parts of the US.

Flood stories exist all over the world and they most likely happened. The belief in the Resurrection is a purely Christian belief. It doesn't exist in other religions, including religions practiced by people in 5,000-year-old civilizations, like India and China. There is nothing scientific about it. It can be taught in comparative religion courses.

 

[alang1216]

I like how you left out a lot of details,,

Exactly what details were you expecting?

 

[Indeependent]

Thanks for making my point. Everyone but the few died in the flood and we have flood stories from around the world. Jesus was executed in the center of the Western world and almost nobody noticed. Curious I think.

Just like we have 1,000 media outlets today with everyone of them giving their slant of what happened with any given event.

 

[otto105]

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.

No, no it isn't.

 

[alang1216]

You would've noticed it, but wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it. God's wrath killed every living creature, but Noah's family and guests.

That's not true. As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. Obviously some life survived.

However, we do have evolution, a fairy tale.

And one of the two greatest supernatural miracles, the resurrection, that only a few took notice of.

 

[alang1216]

Just like we have 1,000 media outlets today with everyone of them giving their slant of what happened with any given event.

Are you saying that what we read may not be the truth??? And people wonder that I have no faith...

 

[james bond]

Flood stories exist all over the world and they most likely happened. The belief in the Resurrection is a purely Christian belief. It doesn't exist in other religions, including religions practiced by people in 5,000-year-old civilizations, like India and China. There is nothing scientific about it. It can be taught in comparative religion courses.

The flood stories over the world from the ancient times back up the one true supernatural Noah's Flood. We also have the fountain of the deep ring around the world where the water from the oceans came up. It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest to rise and cover our surface with 3/4 water. That's hard evidence and real science. It's like the atheists go blind when presented with the truth.

 

[Indeependent]

Are you saying that what we read may not be the truth??? And people wonder that I have no faith...

I am saying that you are not qualified to be a science teacher because you think in Black & White.