Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 406,916 views
ledhed

ledhed

Ultraextreme sanity
Premium
3,425
Its a big deal now for the folks who are upset about the seperation of church and state , to now try to introduce creation into schools by saying that a " benevolent force ' created the universe . What do you think about creation ? Is it a valid enough premise to be taught in school ?
 
I don't think it something can be taught due to the religious nature its course will take.

*edit*

unless attending a specific 'religious' school like a catholic school etc.
 
Children are too young to make up their own minds about the nature of existence. They can't comprehend either the concept of God or the concept of evolution until at least Junior High age (Grade 7-8).

Teaching a child the alphabet is different from trying to convince them to believe what you believe. If you're a parent who believes strongly in the existence of God or another religious figure, you can either teach your kids about it on your own or send them to a Church group, etc. and let them learn there.
 
This is honestly a topic to which no answer can found.

People believe what they want to believe. But, saying that teaching evolution is a bad thing is just bunk. The goal, in my opinion, is for children (as they mature) to make up their own minds about what they want to believe. Unfortunately, that wont happen.

The bottom line is that people should have a choice. And not allowing people to gain knowledge in fear of leaving religion is rediculous. People can/will make up their own minds. The goal is to let them.
James-
 
This sounds like your going for something bigger God or evolution. personaly going to a catholic school for 13 years I think I have a little insight. Every teacher says that God is real nothing else. The bible as I see it is a intrupuration of history. Like Jesus Christ being crucified hundreds of thousands people were crucifed, That Catholic cvhurch just geared that to holy and amazing. There all kinds off them sit down and read the bible and see all the stuff that can be changed form a real scientific fact. I told my friend that I dont really belive in God anymore and he freaked he is like look at all the stories in the bible. This is what told him word for word "that is just what they are stories, nothing and no one can say that it is real and if they can they were probaly programed much like how you are that there is a higher being and he is the creator" I refuse to belive in something without any scientfic proof there is a God.
 
There cannot be a scientific proof of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God/Allah - their God is directly described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. To prove their existence instantly belies all three of those things, thus disproving their existence.

Q.E.D.

Creation vs. Evolution is interesting. Creation is taught as fact. Evolution is taught as theory. The theory of Evolution itself evolves as new evidence is incorporated. "Creation Theory" does not. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.

And if you want to piss Creationists off, mention the Raelians.
 
Well, it's obvious that a higher being created us. Just look at the facts.
Click to expand...
And the facts are ?
I guess it would help to study comparitive religion. But shouldnt the question here be whats being taught ? Not all religions say the same thing. How do you determine the one thats right as far as evolution is concerned ? Then how do you prove it scientificaly. After all you are not only teaching what can be proved . In school you are teaching methods that will enable the student to learn on his own.
When someone who is versed in creation as taught by the bible see's a fossil thats a million years old how will he determine for himself what it means ?
This sounds like your going for something bigger God or evolution.
Click to expand...
If thats what I was looking for I would have run a poll. I could care less who or what is bigger.
As far as the Raelians go Its just as likely that a big group of UFO's came along and shot a creation ray at our section of the universe as it is that some being or god creature spent 7 days putting toghether the universe . And it explains a lot of what creationist claim.Maybe thats why they ( creationist ) get thier panties in a bunch.
 
I don't think creation should be talked about in a public school, but it is okay to talk about creation in a porochial, sp?, school. I don't think they should talk about evolution in public school either, because not everybody believes in it. They shouldn't talk creation because some people don't want to believe that either. BTW, the US Constitution doesn't split the state and church, it just says that religion can't be taught in a public school.
 
This is what the constitution says ;
Article [I.] (See Note 13) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
That has been expanded on by the supreme court to remove prayer from schools etc. because by allowing prayer and religion in a public school the government is showing a preference and establishing that religion at the espense of other religions or even no religion.
@ Klos...you scared me there for a minute.. :)
 
At the risk of throwing a monkeywrench into things...
What if the "Benevolent Force" created the universe/world using evolution as a tool?
 
cardude2004
I don't think they should talk about evolution in public school either, because not everybody believes in it.
Click to expand...

Nobody "believes" in it, unless they are a total retard. Do you believe in the postman?

It's a scientific theory. You can agree or disagree with it. However, the current theories on the evolutionary process have been worked out over the last 130 years and have themselves evolved to include new evidence and observations. Every piece of evidence uncovered leads further away from the dogma of Creationism and towards the concepts of evolutionary mechanisms.


Gil - That's the latest one. However the evolutionary tool directly contradicts several large parts of the Old Testament, including the whole of Genesis. Fundamentalist Christians - and thus "Creation Scientists" - could not accept this.
 
I agree with Famine. Evolution is an extremely important scientific theory, and has an important place in school. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it's something you need to know about to be able to understand big parts of biology, chemistry, physics and so on. Similarly, I think religions are equally important to learn about and I think everyone should learn about at least the major religions in this world, in order to be able to properly understand society and history (which in terms of education will relate to social sciences, psychology, history, arts, etc.)

I am ok with schools teaching from a certain ideological point of view, but there are sets of basics that children need to learn about in school that apply to all schools.
 
Klostrophobic
Well, it's obvious that a higher being created us. Just look at the facts.
Click to expand...
Well, the facts are right around here somewhere...um, no....I must have left them at home, or MS Word crashed when I had the facts...LOOK...an airplane!

What annoys me about Creationists is that they primarily try to bash the Evolutionists' theories, yet instead of presenting evidence in return, they just knock down evolution with pseudo-science and other fallacies. When the onus is on many of them, they usually fail to present any evidence, they wheel out the dogma of: "Well god make this book, and he said it was so...therefore, it's so."

Years ago, I'd get into arguments at work with a bunch Jehovah Witnesses. It was quite fun, because they would squirm when I told them to bring evidence to support their "theories", but at least they wouldn't resort to name-calling and cursing.

On the other hand, why can't we go ahead and teach about comparative religions (the major ones), along with atheism and other methods of philosophy and theology in high school? Different theories can be taught side-by-side, and people can choose for themselves or at least hear out other viewpoints.
 
pupik
On the other hand, why can't we go ahead and teach about comparative religions (the major ones), along with atheism and other methods of philosophy and theology in high school? Different theories can be taught side-by-side, and people can choose for themselves or at least hear out other viewpoints.
Click to expand...
I think this would be a great idea, not only to help young people make proper spiritual decisions on their own, but also to help educate about other cultures, so we can better understand other parts of the world. I'd be all for a class like this being taught in schools, as long as the material being taught is fair and unbiased of course.
 
In the UK's schools, religious education (RE) is compulsory until Year 10 (of 13). Children are taught key aspects of most religions - even brushing on Taoism and other really weird ones.
 
The reason Creationists - particularly Christian ones - can't back up their theory is because their religion calls for a little thing called FAITH. That is, believing in something when you have no proof. The entire Christian religion is based on the fundamentals of faith.

If Evolutionism is true, and there is no God, then when we die we just die. If you think about this for long enough, blood actually starts to shoot out of your nose. Religion may have been created by human beings to help deal with the fear of death; religion acts as a comfort to most people who practice it...
 
ledhed
Its a big deal now for the folks who are upset about the seperation of church and state , to now try to introduce creation into schools by saying that a " benevolent force ' created the universe . What do you think about creation ? Is it a valid enough premise to be taught in school ?
Click to expand...
Personally, i follow a cross between the two methods. God created the universe... but in the end, we evolved out of the microscopic organisms that were on the earth from the beginning. I base this out of the "god created Adam and Eve out of clay" bit that's in the religious texts. You kinda have to assume that it basically meant the microscopic insects that resided in the dirt. Either way, it works for me and it makes sense to me.

As for creationism to be taught in school? I'm not too sure that it should be since creationism is more a religious thing.

One has to wonder though.. where did those original microscopic organisms come from?
 
If you really want me to go through 1 billion years of evolution by the medium of molecular biology, I will. I can guarantee that most people would be asleep by the end of the second sentence.

Suffice to say:
"Primordial Earth" ideal for spontaneous creation of amino acids from surrounding elements (lots of nitrogen and methane, and a great deal of lightning).
Amino acids conjugation makes proteins.
Some proteins self-replicate and (witchcraft happens) create RNA.
RNA creates DNA, which creates more DNA, RNA and protein.
Bundles of protein and nucleic acid (witchcraft happens) carry out functions in order to create more of themselves.
Bundles become "Prokaryotic bacteria" (see "archaeabacteria").
Some bigger bundles absorb smaller bundles with different functions. Smaller bundles become cell organelles. Organism becomes "Eukaryotic".
Eukaryotes cooperate. Become multicelled organisms.
The End.

The origin of cell organelles - nucleus, Gogli apparatus, Endoplasmic Reticulum, mitochondria and so on (stay awake, I'm almost done) - is not in question. Their own membranes are made up of different stuff to the cell membranes, and the cell membranes of every cell in higher organisms, but identical to the archaeabacterial cell membranes.

I'm done now. I promise.
 
surprisingly, that didn't put me to sleep. The systems analysis class that I'm sitting in as I type this message is 10x more boring than what you just said can ever be :)
 
Anderton Prime
Religion may have been created by human beings to help deal with the fear of death; religion acts as a comfort to most people who practice it...
Click to expand...
This is why I am not opposed to religion. Even though most of what religion teaches is most likely false, it does comfort people, and helps them get through difficult times. That, and it also adds purpose to the lives of many people.
 
Famine the problem is instead of trying to understand what you posted , its easier to believe that some old bearded dude in heaven waved a magic wand or something. :)
 
Sage
Too bad it also causes some people to slaughter each other.
Click to expand...
Of course. There are extremists in every field of worship. Though they rarely kill people, the questionable individuals you might have seen walking around dressed like Queen Amidala and Darth Maul at the Phantom Menace premiere are a less severe form of extremism.
 
Famine

Gil - That's the latest one. However the evolutionary tool directly contradicts several large parts of the Old Testament, including the whole of Genesis. Fundamentalist Christians - and thus "Creation Scientists" - could not accept this.
Click to expand...

That is probably true.
However, it is a possiblity. As those of us who believe in God believe that he can do anything.
It would also explain why the Bible only goes back about 10,000 years, but that the dinosaurs go back much further. (based on carbon dating).
But why make life difficult for the creationist or the evolutionists?
 
I'm surprised no one has asked this question:

Are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive?

Evolution is a byproduct of thorough scientific analysis using the scientific method. So is everything else that we as a society have investigated, scientifically. Denying evolution exists is like denying gravity exists. The processes of evolution itself are observable. No one can deny that it does not occur; it happens before our eyes all the time. Species die out, new species appear, existing species change characteristics. All the time. We have evolved. For example, the human race has, on average, grown in height and weight consistently since records of such data has been kept. We've adapted to our continuously changing environment.

Does that mean creationism is a fallacy? Refuted? Parts of certain religions, yes. But evolution can be simply passed off as a product of "God's work", if someone so wishes.

I'm convinced most creationists are not receptive of evolution moreso because it suggests we have evolved from smaller primates. A lot of people don't want to think of themselves as descendents of monkeys, for whatever reasons. (Personally, I'd rather be closely related to a monkey than most humans. At least monkeys don't eek out an existence through the proverbial "****ing-over" of other monkeys...)
 
Gil
That is probably true.
However, it is a possiblity. As those of us who believe in God believe that he can do anything.
It would also explain why the Bible only goes back about 10,000 years, but that the dinosaurs go back much further. (based on carbon dating).
But why make life difficult for the creationist or the evolutionists?
Click to expand...

It's not a case of making life difficult.

Science is, literally, knowledge. In fact "science" derives from the Latin "scire" - "to know". Science is the seeking out of knowledge whether it confirms or contradicts currently held "fact". The "Creationist" branch is not science - Creationists have their "fact" - Genesis - and bend what information they have to fit it.


One of Creationist's favourite tricks is to ask about what happened before the Big Bang. Where did the universe come from? What was there before it? Science, through the wonders of the space-time continuum and the first law of thermodynamics does its best to answer - the universe came into being because a state of nothingness is perfectly stable and the universe naturally tends towards chaos (something is more chaotic than nothing). The question of what happened "before" makes no sense as without space there is no time (gravitational lensing phenomena, including black holes, lead us towards this conclusion), so without the universe there was no "before". However, as we learn more, these conclusions adapt around our knowledge, or "science".

Turn the question around to Creationists and they don't like it one bit. Where did God come from? What existed before God? What created Him? The answer? He's God, so He's always been - no empirical data, no theory, no null hypothesis, no experimental testing, no observation. The mere fact of the fact is enough, or "dogma".

Creationists have a very hard time with Raelians. Raelians believe almost exactly the same thing as "creation scientists", only they don't believe God created life on Earth, but that we were put here by aliens. And who put the aliens where they were? Other aliens, of course.


It all reminds me of the world turtle anecdote, where a pre-eminent scientist was airing his views on cosmology. After his seminar he was approached by an elderly lady who accosted him with the following:

"Your fancy science doesn't impress us. Everyone knows that the world is flat and supported on the backs of four elephants."
"Really? And what, pray, do the elephants stand upon?"
"Why a giant turtle, of course!"
"Fascinating. And what does the turtle stand on?"
"You can't fool us - it's turtles all the way down!"
 
As I've said many times, and there is a long discussion on this topic under the heading "Church and State" (I believe rjensen started the thread) -

I'm in favor of teaching Creation in public schools - in history or social studies, as part of the humanities curriculum. It has absolutely no place whatsoever in a biology classroom, though.
 
This is what started it.
Article 1 of 1, Article ID: MERLIN_711788
Published: October 20, 2004, York Daily Record (PA)

Dover curriculum move likely a first Even some supporters of intelligent design suggest the board might have overstepped.
When the Dover Area School Board voted to require the teaching of intelligent design Monday night, it likely became the first district in the United States to do so.

Until now, the battleground over intelligent design - the theory that all life was created by a divine being - has been largely fought in states such as Kansas and Ohio.

But with Dover's 6-to-3 vote in favor of teaching alternative theories to evolution, "including, but not limited to, intelligent design.

* For those who would like to know about ID *;
Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity.* Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.

I read this stuff and start to wonder when we will start the new witch trials . It really makes you wonder if some of us have gotten past the middle ages.
... So to explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it.
a fine counterpoint !...gimme beer its friday !
 

Latest Posts

Back