Creationism in schools.

[Sheol]

Recently there has been a buncha debate over teaching crationisnm in schools as a theory. The Christions have said that it is as credible as Darwin's theory and the science teachers countered by saying that it gives creationism unearned credibility because it doesn't have facts like Darwin's theory. Then there was also talk that they shouldn't say that it was God that played a part in creationism, but that is was a "supernatural being" of some sorts. Then somebody said that by supernatural being it could be an alian or a strange form of a god. So are they teaching out of the sience books or out of National Enquirer? What do you all think about this. Do you think they should teach creationism in school or not.

[Kymbierlee]

Oh, don't even get me started. Next they'll be teaching that the entire universe was sneezed out the nose of a giant being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure. (Thanks to Douglas Adams for that theory, which to me is about as valid as Creationism.)

OK, right wing of the watch, here is your chance.......

[dennisrwood]

why can't we call the big bang, creationism and evolution theories. none has been proven. why should one have more weight than the other?

[Sheol]

The big bang and evolution are theorys, creationism is not. There is a great deal of evidance supporting the big bang and evolution, and that is the spot creationism is lacking. I can't just say that I have created a new theory that when you die your spirit goes to a garage in Buffalo. I don't think the scientific community will recognize it as a theory. So can you see where I am comeing from?

[dennisrwood]

no. i'm asking for your evolution and big bang proof. as scientists can not prove, but theorize. and creationism has a long history. maybe in 4000 years your garage theory will have gained acceptance?

[Sheol]

But that is the only thing creationism has on evolution, time. Even though you and I both know my garage story is wrong and there is no evidance what so ever it could gain renown over time. But does that give it credibility?

[Avatar]

It's a tough one. On the one hand, I'm opposed to teaching "creationism" and in favour of evolution. On the other, I'm strcitly opposed to forcing any idea on people.

Of course, it's a pretty cut and dried issue. The only support for creationism is the fact that the bible says that that is how it happened. It's as valid as the ancient egyptian creation myth.

I'd say explain, rather than teach, them both. Something along the lines of "Some people think this, and some people think that."

Otherwise, don't teach it at all?

--Avatar

[[Syl]]

I'm all for teaching creationism... in theology class. Keep it out of science.

If a school wants to have a class in Intelligent Design, fine. Just so long as it's not a required class. I don't even have a problem with it being a general science class (like Earth Science... or Rocks for Jocks as we used to call it, even though I loved that class... even though the last line in the book was "And perhaps even someday soon man will land on the moon."... even though that was in '93) as Religious Science.

[Avatar]

Sounds like an acceptable alternative to me. Offer both, and let the students, (or parents I suppose) choose which view is taught to them.

--Avatar

[Cybrweez]

Actually, there is evidence for creationism, but its not really surprising if you've never heard of it, b/c its never taught in public schools. There's a reason its ridiculed in science too, b/c science relies more on consensus than on the scientific method, at least in regards to how life began. Someone mentioned proof of the big bang, sorry, but w/the scientific method, you must be able to perform tests repeatedly, which I haven't seen any blowing up a piece of matter and creating this universe. Any idea that says the big bang should be taught in science class but not creationism is a little laughable. At least w/evolution we have the fact of micro-evolution, which can be tested. That at least can have a place in science class. But if big bang does, creationism should, which has more evidence.

I think people push for creationism b/c of what Avatar says, to give students different theories. Why brainwash them w/one viewpoint? Since macro-evolution isn't a fact, and has so many gaps in it you need faith to believe its true, shouldn't creationism get some pub?

[Cail]

See, I believe in Creation and in evolution. Cybrweez is correct, there are huge, gaping holes in both macro-evolution and the big bang theory. Semantics aside, they're all theories because none of them can be proven. They all rely on some sort of faith.

The problem is that Creationism is a religious teaching, and therefore (according to conventional wisdom), shouldn't be taught in secular public schools. Which means that students are being short-changed on learning a theory that is no less valid than the other ones being taught.

[lurch]

..Sorry..Darwinism is replicable in the lab,, and proven upon countless observations in the field and experiments in the lab..The Big bang theory is based on remanents of the past ofwhat we see today,,the cosmic micro wave background..rate of expansion of the universe..etc..
...The MAIN difference between scientific " theories" and creationism..is that the scientific method ALLOWS for changes, corrections,,refutes, new perspectives as normal part of the process. Creationism is final in its theorising. There is no way,,no accepted process,,out side of the scientific method,,to change it, correct it,,amend it, BECAUSE its based on faith. Things of faith should be taught in sunday school. Things of reading and writing and arithmatic,,get taught in public school.
..I feel sorry for the high schoolers who are led to the false understanding of the non- difference bewteen the two....MEL

[Cail]

Lurch, please provide documentation proving the Big Bang and macro-evolution. If you have it, you're the only one, 'cause it doesn't exist. It takes a leap of scientific faith to accept either one of those theories, just as it takes a spiritual leap of faith to believe in Creationism.

You can no more prove the Big Bang than I can prove there's a God.

[Creator]

..Sorry..Darwinism is replicable in the lab,, and proven upon countless observations in the field and experiments in the lab..The Big bang theory is based on remanents of the past ofwhat we see today,,the cosmic micro wave background..rate of expansion of the universe..etc..
...The MAIN difference between scientific " theories" and creationism..is that the scientific method ALLOWS for changes, corrections,,refutes, new perspectives as normal part of the process. Creationism is final in its theorising. There is no way,,no accepted process,,out side of the scientific method,,to change it, correct it,,amend it, BECAUSE its based on faith. Things of faith should be taught in sunday school. Things of reading and writing and arithmatic,,get taught in public school.
..I feel sorry for the high schoolers who are led to the false understanding of the non- difference bewteen the two....MEL

Lurch is correct. While we don't have a time machine the "cosmic micro wave background..rate of expansion of the universe.." lurch mentions that would exist if a Big Bang had occurred has been verifiably tested.

[Edit]

That doesn't necessarily preclude belief in God, it just suggests the literal interpretation of Genesis is inappropriate.

Think of it another way. Let's say, for the sake of argument, God did use the Big Bang and evoltution as tools to create and shape the Universe. How would He relay that to men thousands of years ago? A parable perhaps - not meant to be taken literally?!

[Nathan]

Here:

www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

That should answer a lot of questions about the big bang theory. There is evidence but no proof for both evolution and the big bang theory and I don't believe anyone ever claimed in this thread that there was proof for either.

Actually, there is evidence for creationism, but its not really surprising if you've never heard of it, b/c its never taught in public schools. There's a reason its ridiculed in science too, b/c science relies more on consensus than on the scientific method, at least in regards to how life began. Someone mentioned proof of the big bang, sorry, but w/the scientific method, you must be able to perform tests repeatedly, which I haven't seen any blowing up a piece of matter and creating this universe. Any idea that says the big bang should be taught in science class but not creationism is a little laughable. At least w/evolution we have the fact of micro-evolution, which can be tested. That at least can have a place in science class. But if big bang does, creationism should, which has more evidence.

Would you be so kind as to direct me to your evidence?

[lurch]

...Okay,,the word theory is being thrown around abit here, perhaps an understanding is in order...Scientific theory doesn't come about by hapinstance..There are observed conditions that may point to a conclusion...The conclusion becomes an accepted theory,,when nobody can come up with a" fits all cases" plausible exception. ...A theory after lengthly trials and exhaustive proofs,,becomes an accepted Law,,as in laws of Physics,,ie Newtons Law of gravity,,etc,,..generally speaking,,its the ..Thesis...Anti-thesis...Synthesis process..Plenty of room for changes, addendums,,corrections ,,out and out refutes,,. So,,The Theory of Evolution is based on what Darwin and his collaborators observed in the field,,then duplicated in the lab. the Big Bang Theory is based on what is observed today of events that happened vast distances thus huge amounts of time ago..the further man looks back,,the closer he gets to a what is theorized to be a unimaginable release of everything we can see and even alot more of what we can't see,,all from contained point the size of a tip of a pin.Its like watching a movie being run backwards..The mathmatics behind this theory,,express the possibilty ,,that is,,its quite possible to have happened. Stay with me here, because this is the point of beauty that my point rests on....There has been proposed challenges to this theory,,within the scientific community. There has been the development of the String Theory..a sub quarkian multidimensional fabric of all existance..the mathmatics used in showing the possibilty of the theory is " cleaner",,less manipulted,,thanthe current mathmatics behind the Big Bang Theory...and...this is so cool..and ..the mathmatics show that quite possibley,,what is refered to as the Big Bang,,rather than an expansion of all things froma minute point,,was/is actually ..hold onto your boot straps folks..a passing of two universes thru each other..the cosmic microwave back ground ,,expansion rate,,etc..are all indicators of the friction, disruption,,re-organization after the '" passing thru" event...
...The point is...the scientific method allows and ENCOURAGES, challenges and rethinks..the process is a win-win for mankind ..the PROCESS allows for the continual expansion of mans understanding of himself and the universe he lives in.
...There is..imho..a complete and total fabrication involved then in the Debate across the country on creationism being taught in public schools. By placing the debate on the issue of " Theorys",,the REAL issue of the teaching of the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS is obfuscated. That..IMHO..is the real target..to subjugate the teaching of the scientific methods..MEL

[Avatar]

Good post lurch.

Actually, there is evidence for creationism, but its not really surprising if you've never heard of it, b/c its never taught in public schools. There's a reason its ridiculed in science too, b/c science relies more on consensus than on the scientific method, at least in regards to how life began. Someone mentioned proof of the big bang, sorry, but w/the scientific method, you must be able to perform tests repeatedly, which I haven't seen any blowing up a piece of matter and creating this universe. Any idea that says the big bang should be taught in science class but not creationism is a little laughable. At least w/evolution we have the fact of micro-evolution, which can be tested. That at least can have a place in science class. But if big bang does, creationism should, which has more evidence.

Would you be so kind as to direct me to your evidence?

I'd be very interested to see the evidence for creationism as well. I could however accept the possibility that Creator mentions, if we postulate the existence of a "prime cause" in the first place, in the sense that evolution etc. could have been set in motion by god. Not that I accept that, but it's the only way I could reconcile the two if I had to.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

Lurch: allow me to find the heart of your post.

"there is no proof of the big bang or evolution. and if we get something wrong (Piltdown) we can just change our theories to fit the newest info."

still waiting on proof.

[I'm Murrin]

It takes a leap of scientific faith to accept either one of those theories, just as it takes a spiritual leap of faith to believe in Creationism.

Actually this isn't true. Because of the abundance of supporting evidence (as was mentioned, the cosmic background radiation, study of the furthest-off parts of the universe, the expansion of the universe; for evolution, there is both the fossil record and studies of mutation, adaptation and speciation in living species), it's more logic than a 'leap of faith'. People have looked at the evidence and came to the most sensible conclusion. The evidence, so far, has not refuted this conclusion.
For creationism, there is no evidence. None. Speculation, folk-lore, a book, but no evidence.

Not meaning to offend (just stating an opinion), but if people still believe creationism, they might as well believe any other ancient myth they come across. I am utterly unable to fathom how christianity has lasted this long; but then again, people need something to keep them from facing the truth, don't they?

[Fist and Faith]

Ironically, the first person to work out a reasonably complete set of equations for the Big Bang was a priest named Georges-Henri Lemaitre. He pursued physics and his faith throughout his life, saying "There are two paths to the truth; I will pursue them both." He understood Einstein's Relativity, but disregarded Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which Einstein only invented because, although his equations said it must be otherwise, people had yet to observe that the universe was in motion. The idea of the Big Bang had been considered before, but Lemaitre seems to have thought of it on his own, and certainly worked things out to a much greater degree than anyone else had.


lurch's mention of two universes passing through each other is interesting. It also brings up the point that the Big Bang is not the only possibility, it is only the most popular. Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis said:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

And a physicist named Robert Gentry has pointed out what he considers flaws with the standard Big Bang theory, and has proposed his own. (I don't know what his own is, but it might be among these:
www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf
www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf
www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf
www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf)


As far as creationism in school goes, I think there should be many classes about religion in public schools. Religion is, perhaps, the biggest part of humanity, and I think trying to give an understanding of it (what do people believe; what impact has religion had on history; why do people believe; etc) would be a fantastic idea.


Murrin, there are many aspects of life that have no answers. Some people need answers to those things more than others do. Religion gives answers that they cannot get elsewhere. I don't think avoiding the truth explains the fact that the vast majority of humans have religious beliefs of one kind or another, humanity has always had religious beliefs, and there has never been a religion-free culture. (People like Hitler and Stalin tried to force their societies to be religion-free, but the official policy of the government certainly wasn't the culture of the people.)