Do you think creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Que Pasa

Active Member
Recently one public school district has added creationism to their science curriculum. I thought this would be an appropriate topic to bring up as there are many points to be made about both creationism and evolution.

**** This is not a debate about wether creationism or evolution are right or wrong****
However anything that aids in showing wether or not you think creationism is acceptable in the public science classroom is fine.

My opinion is as follows: I think that creationism should be taught as a part of the philosophy curriculum, but not the science curriculum. Much of creationism's evidence is based around philosophy, such as the Teleological Argument (Argument from Intelligent Design) etc.
 
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. Col 1:16

Considering that evolution is already in the science classroom. and the school is not doing away with their teaching of evolution, I believe that creationism should be there for the opportunity to compare/contrast. The study of creation as the Bible describes it gives the entire science classroom a whole new "Light!" Truly, from the point of creation, all the other teachings simply build on that truth. This is science in its truest form.

Here is another opinion from my favorite scientist!

Creation as Science

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Question: "Since creation is not testable, and therefore cannot really be scientific, why should it be included in science curricula?"

Answer: Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally. Both can be stated and discussed as scientific models however, and it is poor science and poor education to restrict instruction to only one of them. The fact that creation is not repeatable in the laboratory is irrelevant, since evolution (in the sense of "vertical" transformation from any given kind of organism to a more complex kind of organism) is not only never observed in the laboratory (or in all recorded history for that matter) but also seems impossible in light of the entropy principle (see below). Since creation was completed in the past, we would not expect to see it take place now, whereas evolution is supposed to be still going on. Yet it has never been observed and the entropy principle seems to guarantee that it will never occur at all. In this sense, creation is thus more "scientific" than evolution and should certainly be recognized as at least a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.
Click to expand...

We send our children to school to educate them. Many parents opt to home school today because Biblical principles are not taught. Put the Bible and the teachings back in the classroom and you have one smart kid!
smile.gif


Psalm 119
98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
 
Don't see why creationism shouldn't be included in the curriculum. It's a theory too. I firmly believe evolution, and I would be insulted to be forced to learn creationism as an undeniable fact. By the same token, wouldn't it be unfair to to the same to a creationist?
 
You are very welcome! There are a few Scientist that are Christian that do the body of Christ proud! When they get into the details of some of their experiments, they are WAY over my head! I just have to trust them on some of those things
smile.gif
lol Here are a couple more, the first my family has met and our church back home has great respect for his work. I haven't personally seen it, but about eight years ago, he was setting up a biosphere to recreate as closely as possible the Garden of Eden. He believes that tomatoes, for example, in a perfect climate, would grow to be the size of watermelons! Very interesting man. He is in Glenrose, Texas and it is teeming with dinosaur tracks there! These are the types of things I mean, as I said earlier, that science, in reality, builds upon.

Hope you enjoy!

Dr. Carl Baugh

Dr. Dino aka Dr. Kent Hovind
 
I don't have a problem with it...as long as it's not part of the science curriculum as Que Pasa suggested.

Creationism comes down to one thing: Faith. Faith is not quantifiable or measurable. Therefore, it can't be a part of science. Philosophy, sure, science, no.

As I have stated before, science, in order to truly be SCIENCE, has to be objective. The Institute for Creation Research is NOT objective, it is SUBJECTIVE. The difference? Science is interested in the PROCESSES the arrive at a conclusion. ICR isn't interested in the conclusion because it's already made up its mind about it. Instead it bends, folds and hammers the processes to fit a contrived solution. That is not science.
 
i would rather see (macro) evolution taught in Philosophy too, maybe intelligent design should be taught instead of Creationism, present it as here is one world view and why they see the evidance here, while here is another view macro evolution and here is the evidance for that.
 
I think it's a great idea.

While we're at it, medical schools should teach the demon theory alongside the germ theory, and that drugs, surgery and rehabilitation may be replaced with prayer. The theory also works in the fields of psychiatry and psychology.

Modern economics should include the alternative theory, "give up your worldly possessions” and everybody live on handouts.

Home economics should include the theory that women are 'designed' to be subservient to men and that they should never feed their families ham, bacon, pork chops, clams, crab, lobster or other shellfish. The good news is that a hearty plate of locusts can replace them.

Art classes should teach the theory that sculpture must never be made that depicts anything recognizable.

Animal husbandry classes should teach the theory that you can get striped animals by breeding them where they can see a striped fence.

Geometry classes should teach the theory that pi=3, and that a circle and a sphere are the same thing.

Physics classes should include the theory that there are no ‘laws’ of the universe, as they are all arbitrarily bent and broken all the time by prayer and magic.

Botany classes should include the theory that bushes can talk and plants can live without sunlight and photosynthesis.

Geophysics classes should teach the theory that one can see the entire surface of the planet by going to the top of a really high mountain, thus, the planet is not a sphere.

Biology classes should teach the theory that bats are birds, and donkeys and snakes can talk. Also, the theory that lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, panthers, pumas, bobcats, ocelots, mountain lions, margays, black-footed cats, Siamese cats, tabby cats, saber tooth cats, lynx and all the rest of the cats of the world all came from one pair of kitties a few thousand years ago without evolving into those different forms. The same theory should be included for all other ‘kinds’ of animals. They should also teach the theory that dead people can come back to life, even those that have been buried for years or even centuries.

<Edited for Content>

<Edited for Content>

Astrophysics courses should include the competing theory that Earth is at the center of the entire universe and that stars are pinpoints of light stuck to the dome of the sky (for the moment – they will all fall to Earth soon). It should also teach the theory that the moon’s purpose is to be a light source for humans at night.

<Edited for Content>

Future meteorologists should learn to include the theory that God just didn't like town X, which is why it was wiped out by a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, etc. They should be taught to use location 'sin' factors to predict where the next one will strike. They should also learn the theory that there is enough water on the planet to cover it simultaneously to a depth that engulfs all land, including the very peak of Mt. Everest.

Future air traffic controllers should learn the theory of shutting down their monitors and gathering together in a circle to pray that the planes don't hit each other.

<Edited for Content> Genesis1315
 
i think it does. because it is OBVIOUSLY one of the possibilities. however, that does NOT mean you HAVE to believe in Jesus for that.
wink.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Nov. 09 2004,12:00)]i would rather see (macro) evolution taught in Philosophy too, maybe intelligent design should be taught instead of Creationism, present it as here is one world view and why they see the evidance here, while here is another view macro evolution and here is the evidance for that.
Click to expand...
I don't think macro evolution is a philosophical topic.

It IS a science topic and SHOULD be taught in school...should be taught that it's a horrible theory that has more holes than a finely aged wedge of swiss cheese.

The Intelligent Designer theory also has quite a few flaws to it.

These are two different topics, Philosophy/Theology and Science. Philosophy/Theology isn't a required course in high school (as far as I know) but Science IS required.

So if you're going to suggest topics to take the place of, or taught alongside, evolution, think SCIENCE based.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So if you're going to suggest topics to take the place of, or taught alongside, evolution, think SCIENCE based.
Click to expand...

I thought evolution to be a theory too, not really one to be mixed with science.
 
sarcasm? me? um... I didn't intend any if it was me... =S anyway, DV, it HAS to be possible from your perspective to have a STARTER of the universe. i mean. whoops. universe spontaneously disappears about 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000 hundred trillion years ago... naaaaaaa... if i seriously think about it. you can't seem to find a start to the universe without A creator.
tounge.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Nov. 09 2004,8:37)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So if you're going to suggest topics to take the place of, or taught alongside, evolution, think SCIENCE based.
Click to expand...

I thought evolution to be a theory too, not really one to be mixed with science.
Click to expand...
Evolution IS a theory, but it's a SCIENTIFIC one, not a theological one.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (SilentAssassin @ Nov. 09 2004,8:45)]sarcasm? me? um... I didn't intend any if it was me... =S anyway, DV, it HAS to be possible from your perspective to have a STARTER of the universe. i mean. whoops. universe spontaneously disappears about 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000 hundred trillion years ago... naaaaaaa... if i seriously think about it. you can't seem to find a start to the universe without A creator.
tounge.gif
Click to expand...
SA, you are confusing the terms IMPOSSIBLE with IMPROBABLE.

Just because the chances are slim that someone will win the lottery (improbable) doesn't mean people don't win (impossible). People DO win the lottery.

Just because a spontaneous cause is improbable, doesn't mean it is impossible.

Stop one second and listen to what you're saying SA, it's simply hypocritical.

You're saying that people shouldn't believe in the big bang because you HAVE to have a creator to set the universe in motion...BUT you readily accept that GOD HAS NO CREATOR! So the universe needs a creator, but not God? That's why the Intelligent Designer theory shoots itself in the foot. You can't be PARTIALLY logical, you have to apply logic to the ENTIRE problem. If you assert that the creation of the universe REQUIRES a creator, then God would REQUIRE a creator too.
 
that sarcasm part was seperate... the bible says God IS the past, the present, and the future. i cannot understand that. and neither should you. and yes i was confusing impossible to improbable. but tats from your perspective. when i look at your perspective it's kind of like a middle ground between your beliefs and mine. evolution is a theory and yet still is scientific. time has come that i click on the link on da left, i saw at carm.org
smile.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top