Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[toobfreak]

You say these things like they are facts.

Without a doubt.

In truth they are solely based on your faith.

In truth, your claims are based solely on your ignorance!

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Why not teach it in schools? They teach everything else now EXCEPT reading, writing, and arithmetic!!!

 

[Stann]

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.

Since god cannot be proven by science it has no place in science; maybe science fiction or mythology but not the sciences.

 

[surada]

>>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<

I don't disagree with reading. It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.

We discussed the raven and the dove. Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat. At the end of forty days when its mountain top was visible, what bird did Noah release first and what happened? Next, he released the dove and what happened? This is when the 7 days you mentioned comes in after which he releases the dove again and it finds the olive leaf.

That's enough time for the olive tree to grow and sprout its first leaves as you stated..

When planted in fertile soil that gets full sun for at least 6 hours a day, you can expect your olive tree to bear fruit in 4 –5 years.

 

[alang1216]

In truth, your claims are based solely on your ignorance!

"That is wholly wrong because God was never "born." God has neither beginning nor end. He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself."

If not faith, what 'knowledge' allows you to say any of this.

 

[toobfreak]

If not faith, what 'knowledge' allows you to say any of this.

If I answered that question, you could no longer remain an atheist.

 

[james bond]

Science cannot link itself to creationism.
One is based on fact, the other is fact.

The irrelevance of religion is becoming obvious when the godbotherers attempt to link it to science.

There is no such thing as creation science. It's an oxymoron. There was no creator and all the other rubbish associated with religion. There is no God nor is there a need for one. It's all explained.

Your post just goes to show you don't know at all about science. I must've said a million times facts are something BOTH sides can use. I've mentioned it several times, but you have poo poo in your ears and brains. You don't even know what is true, i.e. facts, or not.

Creation science shows what is true as it has been validated. Evolution has not been validated nor has any hard evidence. It's not observable nor testable. It doesn't have any hard evidence of long time fossils. Just assumption. And assumption has made an ASS out of you, but not me .

 

[james bond]

I saw no scientific evidence in your response. It was more philosophical.

I provided you with a test gif. It is a scientific test that shows something with intelligence behind it doesn't just pop into existence. However, the non-scientific atheists believe that the universe, Earth, and everything in it did. How can anyone who uses science believe that? It's they who use philosophy and are stupid asf .

 

[james bond]

What you call “creationer science” is not in any way connected to science. Creationers simply put a burqa over their fundamentalist religious beliefs and add “science” with the hope of fooling the gullible.

What you fail to understand is that science is concerned with evidence. Creationer dogma is undeniably wedded to religious doctrine. The “statements of belief” required by various creationer ministries and the allegiance to Christianity made by individual creationers can’t be denied.

Creationer’ism is a matter of Biblical literalism. Facts from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian / totalitarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a rigid anti-science agenda.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument at all. Kalam’ism is a philosophical mess. The nonsense only had a short-lived emergence because of the religious extremist William Lane Craig. Kalam’ism argues that God exists because the universe must have a cause. There is never any indication of why this is and nothing other than “it’s true because I say so”. Kalam’ists simply use the same nonsense claim for Kalam’ism that religioners use for religion: “my gods exist because I say so”.

As usual, you and your side have no answers for how the universe, Earth, and everything in it started nor in what order. A few scientists "believe" in multiverses as they just pop into existence. That is stupid asf. We only have evidence for ONE universe. I'm talking science with ridiculous people who believe non-science and has an atheist philosophy which is stupid asf.

 

[james bond]

Has anyone observed a 'creation'? I thought it was done before there was any man to observe it? How can we test creation science?

How do we teach creation science without being understanding the laws and mechanisms behind it and not being able to duplicate a creation in a lab?

I already showed thru the Bible that God stopped creation on the sixth day. We don't have creation of life anymore, but observation and reproduction (another gift from God).

The observation shows scientifically that creation is valid and the DNA evidence is observable.

 

[alang1216]

If I answered that question, you could no longer remain an atheist.

In that case, please answer.

 

[alang1216]

I already showed thru the Bible that God stopped creation on the sixth day. We don't have creation of life anymore, but observation and reproduction (another gift from God).

The observation shows scientifically that creation is valid and the DNA evidence is observable.

It was a lifetime of observation that convinced Darwin but I doubt you have spent much time observing anything but your Bible.

 

[toobfreak]

In that case, please answer.

I'll tell you this much now that I have a little time: Everyone is at different points along the path to full God Realization, much like a physical development-- you wouldn't give a load of bricks to a child to carry up a ladder, same as people who are not yet ready for God should be left to develop in their own time. Some people develop very quickly while others need many lifetimes, yet others are falling backwards the other way!

Atheists are always waiting for someone to "prove" God to them while standing on one foot, and someday you may find him or not, that is really up to you and God, but the cardinal mistake way too many Christians make is trying to beat atheists or agnostics over the head with their religion which many themselves really poorly understand, when these people neither want nor are ready for it! So it just becomes a major turn off. And it is an offense against God that a person actually drive another person farther from him by forcing stuff on them they are not yet ready to hear, and that is exactly what a lot of people do. They actually further drive people away from God by trying to beat them into believing, like it is some kind of personal affront to their ego that someone else does not share their faith, but true belief in God only comes from direct experience with him which happens entirely under his control and not because someone "preached" to them.

So you go right on believing or not believing whatever it is you believe. If someday you are ready for God, he will reveal some of himself to you then you will not have to ask or wonder or listen to others, you will have no doubts.

There is no mistaking God when you meet Him.

 

[toobfreak]

It was a lifetime of observation that convinced Darwin

Yes, that, and a lot of letters and conversations from and with Alfred Wallace, who really PROVED his theories, but got none of the credit.

 

[alang1216]

I'll tell you this much now that I have a little time: Everyone is at different points along the path to full God Realization, much like a physical development-- you wouldn't give a load of bricks to a child to carry up a ladder, same as people who are not yet ready for God should be left to develop in their own time. Some people develop very quickly while others need many lifetimes, yet others are falling backwards the other way!

Atheists are always waiting for someone to "prove" God to them while standing on one foot, and someday you may find him or not, that is really up to you and God, but the cardinal mistake way too many Christians make is trying to beat atheists or agnostics over the head with their religion which many themselves really poorly understand, when these people neither want nor are ready for it! So it just becomes a major turn off. And it is an offense against God that a person actually drive another person farther from him by forcing stuff on them they are not yet ready to hear, and that is exactly what a lot of people do. They actually further drive people away from God by trying to beat them into believing, like it is some kind of personal affront to their ego that someone else does not share their faith, but true belief in God only comes from direct experience with him which happens entirely under his control and not because someone "preached" to them.

So you go right on believing or not believing whatever it is you believe. If someday you are ready for God, he will reveal some of himself to you then you will not have to ask or wonder or listen to others, you will have no doubts.

There is no mistaking God when you meet Him.

Well, I'm still an atheist (with a touch of the agnostic) but thanks for your views.

I guess like most atheists I can't believe in God BEFORE I believe in God, that takes a faith I don't have and am not searching for. If God wants me he knows where to reach me, I don't feel I have that same option.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, I'm still an atheist (with a touch of the agnostic) but thanks for your views. I guess like most atheists I can't believe in God BEFORE I believe in God, that takes a faith I don't have and am not searching for. If God wants me he knows where to reach me, I don't feel I have that same option.

If it helps, I grew up very much an atheist as a kid, pure science and all that, major skeptic, then one day something happened, not sure how, I met a man, I got a sudden interest, an inner hunger, a need, and without going into details, it all just fell into place. It was the greatest experience of my life. But I neither expect nor fault anyone else for having different experiences and beliefs!

 

[Hollie]

As usual, you and your side have no answers for how the universe, Earth, and everything in it started nor in what order. A few scientists "believe" in multiverses as they just pop into existence. That is stupid asf. We only have evidence for ONE universe. I'm talking science with ridiculous people who believe non-science and has an atheist philosophy which is stupid asf.

As usual, you don't understand that various disciplines of science are seeking answers to the 'origins' question. Unfortunately, you have dead-ended at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah. You accept magic and supernaturalism at the hands of three gods as an answer.

You choose to vilify the human quest for knowledge and the desire to explore. That presents a problem for you because the church will never again have the power to inflict their fear and ignorance on humanity. There are not a lot of people being brutalized and tortured for proposing the earth is spherical. As much as you may disagree with a spherical planet, believing its flat will not change the facts,

 

[alang1216]

Yes, that, and a lot of letters and conversations from and with Alfred Wallace, who really PROVED his theories, but got none of the credit.

Not how I recall it. Wallace wrote to Darwin, but Darwin had been formulating he theories for decades by then. The only thing Darwin got from Wallace was the push to publish.

 

[Wuwei]

I already showed thru the Bible that God stopped creation on the sixth day. We don't have creation of life anymore, but observation and reproduction (another gift from God).

The observation shows scientifically that creation is valid and the DNA evidence is observable.

It seems that you are not interested in creation science in the way that an outsider would be. The major thrust is to dismiss evolution in every way possible.

To me that is not creation science. It should focus equally on the science of creation rather than so fully on an attempt to dissemble evolution. But of course that is not possible because science cannot explain the flood nor the timeline of the opening chapters of the Genesis. So "creation science" is actually "anti-evolution science", but that would not sell to public school texts.

If the creation science of dissembling evolution is in the textbooks, then it would be fair game for the textbooks to dissemble Genesis science and promote it as allegory. It is a lose-lose situation for your quest.

 

[Wuwei]

Not how I recall it. Wallace wrote to Darwin, but Darwin had been formulating he theories for decades by then. The only thing Darwin got from Wallace was the push to publish.

Yes I remember reading that Wallace was hot on the tail of Darwin. But really Darwin did all the field work.