Evolution vs Creationism

[victra♥]

A good friend of mine is a fairly passionate Christian and one day during class we ended up talking about Biology. It didn't start off as anything special as we were discussin about the difficulty level of Biology in comparison to the other science courses at our school. However, we soon trailed onto the topic of Evolution. My friend being a Christian started complaining about how he didn't like the course because it only covered Evolution and not Creationism. My rebuttal to this was that Evolution was the theory that was more widely considered to be true by Scientists and that teaching students that "God made everything" leaves every question unanswered. He argued that some students do not believe in Evolution and instead, Creationism, and that it was unfair to restrict them (and even other non-Christian students) the opportunity to explore Creationism. This brings me to my first question:
Should Creationism be taught amongst Evolution in public schools? And if so, for what reasons?

With Creationism, it also mentioned that the Universe, the Earth and all it's creatures were created 6000 some years ago. With that, it also means that Dinosaurs and Humans must have lived amongst each other does it not? Yet fossils prove otherwise. Curiously enough, my friend believes that all fossils are fake and that they do not prove the Earth is older that 6000 years. How is it that some Creationists can still believe in something so ludicrous? This brings me to my second question:
With so many facts and scientific theories going against a Young Earth and the possibility of humans living alongside Dinosaurs, why do so many people reject this, but not other theories and facts of Science? Which brings me to Noah's Ark......

Finally, a common rebuttal against the Theory of Evolution is just that. It's a theory. However, a lot of Creationists confuse scientific theory with regular common-day theory. To have a scientific theory, one must start off with a hypotheses and test it until it is able to be tested with experiments and changed accordingly until it reaches a point were it is almost (if not entirely) verified as fact. Not believing in Evolution would be like rejecting that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is in fact a theory. Science isn't a pick and choose game Creationists. Another common rebuttal against Evolution sounds something like this: "Because of the complexity of a watch, there must be an intelligent designer and as such, with the complexity of the universe, there must be an extremely intelligent designer" or something of the sort. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it's the watch analogy or something similar. Anyways, Creationists will then argue that there is no possible way that life can emerge from goop. I actually did my research for this and I found out that it was DNA that was the "reason" life randomly emerged. There were two important compounds in the atmosphere at the time, Hydrogen Cyanide and Ammonia. Scientists were then able to combine these two compounds in an aqueous solution under conditions similar to that of Earth millions of years ago. After sometime, without any other interference, the two formed adenine, one of the nucleotides that make up DNA and we all know that if there's DNA, there's life, and in this case, primitive cells.

There are so many facts that lean towards Evolution, like Natural Selection, and yet the only "fact" that supports Creationism is a single book written ages ago. Which finally brings me to my final question:
Evolution or Creationism?

 

[SkylerOcon]

Creationism is religion. It would be breaking the law to teach it in schools.

And plus, seeing as the majority of students are religious (and those who aren't are friends with those who are) they would already know about creationism. It's not like there's anything complicated to it.

 

[Crimson King]

Though Evolution is still a theory, it's a lot more logical than an imaginary man made everything as it is but there are somethings he messed up on.

 

[RDK]

Though Evolution is still a theory, it's a lot more logical than an imaginary man made everything as it is but there are somethings he messed up on.

Lol, win.

But in all seriousness, SCIENCE should be taught in school--not elaborate "what if" theories that can't be proven or disproven. As stated before, Creationism is a religion. Teaching it on the false pretenses that it's true would be a disservice to students.

 

[The Executive]

The creationism pushed for would likely be the Christian flavor, but then the ACLU, champion of the "minority", would step in and demand that all forms of ID be taught which would lead to a frantic push by fundamentalists to close the door they were so eager to open.

 

[cF=)]

Though Evolution is still a theory

Just to make it clearer, a 'theory' is the name given to a 'hypothesis' that is supported by multiple evidences, reviewed by peers and applied with fruitful results. This is why the 'theory of evolution' is far superior to the 'unproved and imaginative creationism'.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Though Evolution is still a theory, it's a lot more logical than an imaginary man made everything as it is but there are somethings he messed up on.

Still?

There's nothing beyond theory.

The most current form of evolution (which incorporates genetics, and punctuated equilibrium among other things) is the current null hypothesizes. The overall framework of evolution is a theory.

It will never go beyond that, even as the various null hypothesizes become more proven or change. Laws of nature are really little more then a colloquial term for theories that have held in all tested cases and have been tested many times. They are still vulnerable to having their hypothesizes rejected including the overall framework of the theory.


So what precisely should evolution be to satisfy you?

 

[fkacyan]

I've always stood by the fact that this is nigh impossible to debate, for the simple reason that this is really the debate of Faith v Logic. Faith is belief, or in essence strong opinion versus facts. You simply can't argue faith, as it's like a person who drinks Coke arguing with somebody who liked Pepsi that his soda is better.

So, yes, there's a theory of evolution, but there's really only a debate if logic gets baited into duking it out in the unwinnable battle against faith.

 

[snex]

I've always stood by the fact that this is nigh impossible to debate, for the simple reason that this is really the debate of Faith v Logic. Faith is belief, or in essence strong opinion versus facts. You simply can't argue faith, as it's like a person who drinks Coke arguing with somebody who liked Pepsi that his soda is better.

So, yes, there's a theory of evolution, but there's really only a debate if logic gets baited into duking it out in the unwinnable battle against faith.

unwinnable? faith is an utterly useless way to go about doing/knowing anything. you wouldnt try to fix your car with faith, you wouldnt try to diagnose computer problems with faith, why would you ever try to date the earth with it?

there is no reason whatsoever to think that faith is a useful enterprise for any type of understanding.

 

[Crimson King]

Still?

There's nothing beyond theory.

The most current form of evolution (which incorporates genetics, and punctuated equilibrium among other things) is the current null hypothesizes. The overall framework of evolution is a theory.

It will never go beyond that, even as the various null hypothesizes become more proven or change. Laws of nature are really little more then a colloquial term for theories that have held in all tested cases and have been tested many times. They are still vulnerable to having their hypothesizes rejected including the overall framework of the theory.


So what precisely should evolution be to satisfy you?

I meant in the since that it's not officially a Law. I have heard the argument NUMEROUS times from Christians trying to invalidate it because it's not.

 

[RDK]

I meant in the since that it's not officially a Law. I have heard the argument NUMEROUS times from Christians trying to invalidate it because it's not.

What Christians fail to see is the discerning factor of just how much of a "theory" their viewpoint is. Evolution is backed up by a good amount of evidence today. Creationism is not.

You cannot put the theory of evolution on the same level as the theory of Creationism simply because it's a theory and not a law. You can have a "theory" about anything; what backs up that theory is what counts.

 

[AltF4]

There is no debate of Evolution vs Creationism. Evolution is not a theory at all. It is an observation. Evolution is the fact that species change over time. It happens, there is no debate about whether or not evolution occurs. You can go to a university (ASU does this, and I presume other universities as well) and view an open demonstration on a regular basis. You can see with your own two eyes species of insects changing over time into other species. Furthermore, there is an overwhelmingly enormous volume of evidence from fields such as archeology.

How this happens is the only thing open to debate. Natural Selection and Intelligent Design are two rival theories (I use the term loosely and begrudgingly in the case of ID) that seek to explain how and why evolution occurs.

 

[RDK]

There is no debate of Evolution vs Creationism. Evolution is not a theory at all. It is an observation. Evolution is the fact that species change over time. It happens, there is no debate about whether or not evolution occurs. You can go to a university (ASU does this, and I presume other universities as well) and view an open demonstration on a regular basis. You can see with your own two eyes species of insects changing over time into other species. Furthermore, there is an overwhelmingly enormous volume of evidence from fields such as archeology.

How this happens is the only thing open to debate. Natural Selection and Intelligent Design are two rival theories (I use the term loosely and begrudgingly in the case of ID) that seek to explain how and why evolution occurs.

Proponents of ID would have you believe that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things (in that the prior is existant and the latter is a fabrication).

 

[slartibartfast42]

Wow, not a single person for Creationism I see. Guess I'll have to do.

With so many facts and scientific theories going against a Young Earth and the possibility of humans living alongside Dinosaurs, why do so many people reject this, but not other theories and facts of Science? Which brings me to Noah's Ark......

Not believing in Evolution would be like rejecting that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is in fact a theory. Science isn't a pick and choose game Creationists.

I myself question everything I am told, and choose to believe what I like/find most likely to be true in my mind, while still continuously doubting it. The main reason I think people believe other parts of science but not Evolution is that Evolution is historical science while everything else is universal science that can be proved via experiments. Everything is science that is universally accepted, even by fundamentalists, are things that you can prove with an experiment or basic observations. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun can be proven with math, satellite images, etc. Physics, chemistry, etc, are completely backed up with repeatable experimental observations. There isn't really a practical laboratory experiment that can prove 100% that something like evolution happened in the past (unless we get time travel technology). There is also no concrete evidence that it happened in the past. The main proof provided by Creationists and Evolutionists is "We're here, so <insert idea here> must have happened".

Finally, a common rebuttal against the Theory of Evolution is just that. It's a theory.

I hate that rebuttal. I hate when anyone in any debate decides it's easier to nitpick at terminology than provide a logical argument. I respect Evolutionists that use logic more than Creationists who don't.

Anyways, Creationists will then argue that there is no possible way that life can emerge from goop. I actually did my research for this and I found out that it was DNA that was the "reason" life randomly emerged. There were two important compounds in the atmosphere at the time, Hydrogen Cyanide and Ammonia. Scientists were then able to combine these two compounds in an aqueous solution under conditions similar to that of Earth millions of years ago. After sometime, without any other interference, the two formed adenine, one of the nucleotides that make up DNA and we all know that if there's DNA, there's life, and in this case, primitive cells.

Possible early earth substances form adenine when mixed properly in a laboratory = having just 1 in 4 of the medium for information = Having the information = information is interpreted and used to form something so complex we can't ever create it ourselves.

Nice logic there. Definitely no jumps/gaps.

I'm convinced that even if you arranged all the necessary parts for a cell in close proximity, the chances for the cell to form are so low that there is no way life could ever form from such a situation. Seriously, a protein is made up of over 100 amino acids, and a cell is hundreds of proteins, all required to be arranged with the proper locations relative to each other. Now with 20+ proteins, so you get something like (20^100)^200 different possible formations, and those numbers are really generous estimates. That and the fact that, you know, amino acids don't just decide to form together in random patterns, and the chances of all the materials being there in proper amounts is assumed to be 100%, along with the assumption that all the other required materials, such as lipids, and energy source, etc., are present.

 

[yossarian22]

How is this a debate in any way, shape, or form? The issue has been settled for quite some time, and it is impossible to set up a position contra to "We should believe evolution rather than creationism".

 

[manhunter098]

Proponents of ID would have you believe that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things (in that the prior is existant and the latter is a fabrication).

Microevolution would be dealing with genotypes and phenotypes of an individual species. Once you get to the difference between species, you have already reached macroevolution. Macroevolution then too has been observed, any situation where we observe a new species evolve is macroevolution in action. So essentially what AltF4Warrior posted about WAS an example of obervable macroevolution in action.

 

[GhostAnime]

I myself question everything I am told, and choose to believe what I like/find most likely to be true in my mind, while still continuously doubting it. The main reason I think people believe other parts of science but not Evolution is that Evolution is historical science while everything else is universal science that can be proved via experiments. Everything is science that is universally accepted, even by fundamentalists, are things that you can prove with an experiment or basic observations. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun can be proven with math, satellite images, etc. Physics, chemistry, etc, are completely backed up with repeatable experimental observations. There isn't really a practical laboratory experiment that can prove 100% that something like evolution happened in the past (unless we get time travel technology). There is also no concrete evidence that it happened in the past. The main proof provided by Creationists and Evolutionists is "We're here, so <insert idea here> must have happened".

no, this isn't why evolution isn't accepted by them. they'd accept it easily if it didn't go against their religion.

of course you can't prove this kind of evolution to anybody first-hand, but it's pretty clear that life forms on earth have changed over time.

 

[slartibartfast42]

^^^^^

That is quite a factor. But OP was asking for how you can justify doubting evolution but not other fields of science. Anyway, If you could somehow prove evolution 100%, I'd go for it.

Microevolution would be dealing with genotypes and phenotypes of an individual species. Once you get to the difference between species, you have already reached macroevolution. Macroevolution then too has been observed, any situation where we observe a new species evolve is macroevolution in action. So essentially what AltF4Warrior posted about WAS an example of obervable macroevolution in action.

Microevolution can change species. It just can't add NEW information. That's the distinction creationists make, Macroevoulution is evolution with new information added that evolutionists say created all life. Microevolution (which I think should just be called natural selection), is when species form without gaining information via mutation, they just work with what they already have.

Anyway, I don't really feel like debating this with a ton of people, I'll get overwhelmed with 8 different people bringing up separate points and end up wasting lots of time when it's clear no one is going to change their mind. I foresee this going into a "u gots no evidence!!!1!!11", "no U!!1!!1" debate. I support that this debate has no resolution, partially because you can't conclusively prove what happened in the past, and partially because if one side wins, the other side has to change their view on life drastically, so they can't lose.

 

[cF=)]

I support that this debate has no resolution, partially because you can't conclusively prove what happened in the past, and partially because if one side wins, the other side has to change their view on life drastically, so they can't lose.

The difference is, natural selection has proofs and is a theory used in many fields of science as of now. Here's a little definition for you:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

Second, if you don't change your mind after being proved wrong, you're a hypocrite and a childish individual. Have you ever thought Santa Claus was real after your parents (or yourself) understood how it was going on? And now you're telling me that god created human beings, the world in 7 days, and adam and eve who were living with dinosaurs in their backyard...

 

[GhostAnime]

Anyway, If you could somehow prove evolution 100%, I'd go for it.

that's strange. you want to wait for 100% of something that has facts and observations backing it while you believe in creationism; which has NOTHING backing it. justify yourself, please.

Anyway, I don't really feel like debating this with a ton of people, I'll get overwhelmed with 8 different people bringing up separate points and end up wasting lots of time when it's clear no one is going to change their mind.

this isn't the point of the debate forum, though.

 

[manhunter098]

^^^^^

That is quite a factor. But OP was asking for how you can justify doubting evolution but not other fields of science. Anyway, If you could somehow prove evolution 100%, I'd go for it.



Microevolution can change species. It just can't add NEW information. That's the distinction creationists make, Macroevoulution is evolution with new information added that evolutionists say created all life. Microevolution (which I think should just be called natural selection), is when species form without gaining information via mutation, they just work with what they already have.

Microevolution can still deal with the addition of new genes and mutations of existing genes. It cannot deal with anything higher than a single species. Just because there is a mutation doesnt mean there is a new species. It means there is a new allele that can be used by that species, assuming the carrier of that mutation can survive to reproduce. Microevolution is NOT natural selection. It is the study of genetic variation and change within a species. Natural selection can deal with changes of a single species, but it is on the whole a much broader concept than can be encompassed by microevolution, since it also deals with changes above the species level and the formation of new species.

 

[snex]

gene duplication events happen all the time, especially in plants. so now you have 2 genes where before you had 1, which lets the extra one mutate freely. thus, new information is created.

if you think otherwise, present a rigorous definition of "information" that we can measure.

 

[slartibartfast42]

that's strange. you want to wait for 100% of something that has facts and observations backing it while you believe in creationism; which has NOTHING backing it. justify yourself, please.

this isn't the point of the debate forum, though.

Who said Creationism has nothing backing it.

Microevolution can still deal with the addition of new genes and mutations of existing genes. It cannot deal with anything higher than a single species. Just because there is a mutation doesnt mean there is a new species. It means there is a new allele that can be used by that species, assuming the carrier of that mutation can survive to reproduce. Microevolution is NOT natural selection. It is the study of genetic variation and change within a species. Natural selection can deal with changes of a single species, but it is on the whole a much broader concept than can be encompassed by microevolution, since it also deals with changes above the species level and the formation of new species.

I hate debating on terminology. You're probably right though. *checks wikipedia* You're right. The point I was trying to make is that that's the distinction that is made when arguing against evolution, no new information has been added in observed variation.

gene duplication events happen all the time, especially in plants. so now you have 2 genes where before you had 1, which lets the extra one mutate freely. thus, new information is created.

if you think otherwise, present a rigorous definition of "information" that we can measure.

I don't quite see what you're saying. I don't get how gene duplication is added information. If I walk up to you and say "I main Marth", then I walk up to another person and say "I main Marth I main Marth", has the person who I said it twice to received any more information than you? Both people know that I main Marth and nothing else.

Wait, I read it again, I think you're trying to say that the duplication will mean that one of the sets of information can be altered without losing the necessary information. Anyway, aren't mutations harmful though? I can't really see how mutations can lead up to new body functions, with DNA being so complex. Anyway, then there's the whole irreducible organs thing thing. And Butterflies. >.>

The problem is that I feel this argument is limited by the fact that we don't have a good enough understanding of DNA. Don't we think that most of the DNA is worthless? However, I don't think that is true, because experiments have shown that vestigial organs disappear over time, so worthless DNA would have disappeared.

 

[GhostAnime]

Natural selection is testable, I'd even go as far as calling it common sense, but saying what happened in the past isn't testable.

now you're just contradicting yourself. how can you honestly say natural selection is 'common sense' but it DIDN'T happen in the past? when do you think it started? recently?

Who said Creationism has nothing backing it.

you have evidence? it would be nice for you to provide some.

 

[AltF4]

I don't quite see what you're saying. I don't get how gene duplication is added information.

It's really kind of simple:

Start out with a series of molecules...

ATGCCAT

Then it duplicates itself into...

ATGCCATATGCCAT

Then part of it mutates...

ATACCATATGCTAT

And suddenly you've got an organism which has a more complex genetic structure: IE More "information".


Btw: The term "information" is often misused in this context to suggest that macro-evolution cannot occur. Information in other scientific contexts has a very specific and precise meaning. And THAT kind of information cannot increase, but this is not an example of that kind of information.

Who said Creationism has nothing backing it.

Me.

 

[snex]

Well, history isn't testable now is it? So wouldn't that mean the part of evolution explaining the origin of life isn't a theory? Natural selection is testable, I'd even go as far as calling it common sense, but saying what happened in the past isn't testable. Like I said, I don't like debates on terminology. Why try to debate whether or not Evolution is a theory or not, or whether or not anything classified as a theory is valid or not when you should be giving evidence and determining validity without getting tangled up in debates over terminology that has no impact on anything.

of course history is testable. to steal an argument from kur in the "tree falling" thread - if you see a fallen tree, you can test historical hypotheses on how it got there. you can take normal trees and see what kinds of things make them fall, and how they fall. you can chop the tree down with an axe and note how the clean chipping differs from the natural fallen tree. you can let a beaver have at it and see the differences. you can test hypotheses on how trees fall until you find one that yields a tree that looks like the one that fell naturally.

if you think you cant test history, how do you think anybody ever gets convicted of murder? should we let all murderers go free?

Who said Creationism has nothing backing it.

you did. you asserted that historical theories cant be tested.

but youre wrong. they can, and creationism always fails the tests put to it.

Wait, I read it again, I think you're trying to say that the duplication will mean that one of the sets of information can be altered without losing the necessary information. Anyway, aren't mutations harmful though? I can't really see how mutations can lead up to new body functions, with DNA being so complex. Anyway, then there's the whole irreducible organs thing thing. And Butterflies. >.>

The problem is that I feel this argument is limited by the fact that we don't have a good enough understanding of DNA. Don't we think that most of the DNA is worthless? However, I don't think that is true, because experiments have shown that vestigial organs disappear over time, so worthless DNA would have disappeared.

dont confuse your ignorance with the ignorance of scientists working in the field. if what you said is true, why would 99.9% of all working biologists accept evolution?

have you ever considered, oh i dunno, ASKING ONE about this stuff? they exist on every college campus, and there is probably at least one at your high school. you really have no excuse.

 

[Crimson King]

My favorite argument against creationism, at least young earth creationism, is that the Sumarians discovered glue something like 500 years before we existed.

I really don't understand the mindset of someone who can completely believe in Creationism. In fact, I'd love for a creationist to just post everything they believe in regard to that. THEN change the word "God" to "Nature" and realize how interchangeable it all is. I don't expect anyone to do it, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[slartibartfast42]

now you're just contradicting yourself. how can you honestly say natural selection is 'common sense' but it DIDN'T happen in the past? when do you think it started? recently?

you have evidence? it would be nice for you to provide some.

There are 2 animals, one is sickly, the other is strong and healthy, which one is more likely to survive? This is natural selection, which is common sense. Now, saying that all life was generated by random chance mutations over time, when there are clear problems like where the first life came from, and how irreducible organs and organisms (like the butterfly) appeared, etc. is not common sense.

Anyway, all your "evidence" can be interpreted to support either side. Fossils can either be "missing links" or simply animals that God created that went extinct. All the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways.

Creationism makes perfect sense if you believe God exists (which is pretty much the hidden argument behind Creationism vs Evolution). It's easy for him to have just created everything. The evidence can be interpreted for either side really. I personally don't see this debate going anywhere, so I'd like to stop it (because I'm too lazy), unless you guys think you have something groundbreaking.

 

[GhostAnime]

Now, saying that all life was generated by random chance mutations over time, when there are clear problems like where the first life came from, and how irreducible organs and organisms (like the butterfly) appeared, etc. is not common sense.

but evolution isn't meant to explain where life first began. it explains how life has CHANGED.

Anyway, all your "evidence" can be interpreted to support either side. Fossils can either be "missing links" or simply animals that God created that went extinct. All the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways.

until there is evidence of an actual being, it is only interpreted to support evolution.

Creationism makes perfect sense if you believe God exists (which is pretty much the hidden argument behind Creationism vs Evolution). It's easy for him to have just created everything. The evidence can be interpreted for either side really.

but you haven't provided any for creationism itself. you can't just take something that does have things supporting it and attribute them to random things that are unsupported.

 

[snex]

basically what slartibartfast42 is saying is that if you accept a ******** premise, the evidence can always be "interpreted" to fit that ******** premise.

do you believe in santa claus? then all the evidence can be "interpreted" to support his existence.
do you believe in zeus? then all the evidence can be "interpreted" to support his existence.

what sets science apart from your stupid fairy tale is that science doesnt accept ******** premises and then try to support them. science only accepts one premise that we all already agree on - that observation of the world can teach us how the world works. and using that premise and ONLY that premise (which you agree with, otherwise youd never eat food), you get evolution.

you may think that your ******** premise about magical gods is reasonable, but in reality, it is no more reasonable than ANY ******** premise i can literally make up out of thin air.

 

[Kur]

There are 2 animals, one is sickly, the other is strong and healthy, which one is more likely to survive? This is natural selection, which is common sense. Now, saying that all life was generated by random chance mutations over time, when there are clear problems like where the first life came from, and how irreducible organs and organisms (like the butterfly) appeared, etc. is not common sense.

Evolution does not claim that all life was generated by random chance. That is not evolution at all.

The study of the origins of life are a completely different theory called abiogenesis. Evolution only takes over once that first life started.

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in the natural world. Bacterial flagellum, eyeballs, bombardier beetles, butterflies (new one on me), and all the others. A little bit of research clearly shows that each of these systems can be easily explained by natural selection and evolution. Shoot, there are videos on YouTube that show several entirely possibly ways these things could have evolved. It is all common sense. It becomes even more so once you actually learn a little bit about how evolution really works.

And I will give you a hint, in not one single step does evolution say "...and then god did something..."

 

[victra♥]

My favorite argument against creationism, at least young earth creationism, is that the Sumarians discovered glue something like 500 years before we existed.

I really don't understand the mindset of someone who can completely believe in Creationism.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

It's ridiculous to think that Creationists would believe in a 6000 year old Universe. With Radiometric dating and other methods of dating rocks and fossils, how can they disregard all of this evidence? I posted a link above and I'd really like to see everyones opinions on the "top evidences" against Evolution. Quite frankly, i don't know what to make of it. I'd also like to see more Christians/Creationists post their opinions. There's not much left to rebuke, but still so many questions that haven't been answered by the Creationist's view.

 

[Kur]

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

It's ridiculous to think that Creationists would believe in a 6000 year old Universe. With Radiometric dating and other methods of dating rocks and fossils, how can they disregard all of this evidence? I posted a link above and I'd really like to see everyones opinions on the "top evidences" against Evolution. Quite frankly, i don't know what to make of it. I'd also like to see more Christians/Creationists post their opinions. There's not much left to rebuke, but still so many questions that haven't been answered by the Creationist's view.

Oh it's easy for them. They simply say that radiometric dating isn't accurate at all. I mean, how could it be when it can't even tell you the earth is 6000 years old?

All a creationist does is say things like "Nuh uh! Carbon dating don't work and if we evolved from monkeys then why do we still got monkeys? There are trees standing right up through all them dirt layers, so how could there be millions of years between the layers? Nobody ever saw a dog give birth to a cat! Was your grandpa a gorilla? I know the bible is right because God wrote it and God never lies, the bible says so. If you put a bunch of car parts in a garage for a million years will there be a car there when you open the door? Evolution says the big bang made everything, how can something come from nothing, blow up, and create perfect order? What about the banana? What about the bacterial flagellum? I AIN'T NO MONKEY!!!" Then they smile as if they said something profound and walk away before you even open your mouth to rebuke the nonsense.

 

[Deleted member]

From the original post:

Your friend has a point, you know. I can completely agree with him. However, how far can that go?

I would argue that the extent of teaching creationism in science class goes to about one single period. There isn't a whole lot to cover. You don't need to delve into a textbook or religious text, you just simply need one period to state that there are beliefs that we were created as humans and did not evolve.

Simple as that. Only one period necessary to do the topic justice. However, biology is much more complex and clearly requires a full year. Tell your friend that.

On a related note, Catholic schools need to teach evolution. While secular schools need to teach creationism, albeit briefly, and in an unbiased manner.

 

[adumbrodeus]

From the original post:

Your friend has a point, you know. I can completely agree with him. However, how far can that go?

I would argue that the extent of teaching creationism in science class goes to about one single period. There isn't a whole lot to cover. You don't need to delve into a textbook or religious text, you just simply need one period to state that there are beliefs that we were created as humans and did not evolve.

Simple as that. Only one period necessary to do the topic justice. However, biology is much more complex and clearly requires a full year. Tell your friend that.

On a related note, Catholic schools need to teach evolution. While secular schools need to teach creationism, albeit briefly, and in an unbiased manner.

Simple question, was creationism obtained via the scientific method?

Then it doesn't belong in a science class... period. It's perfectly fine for discussion in say... a comparative religion class. But not science classes.

Also, I was under the impression that Catholic schools DO teach evolution... Mine certainly did.

 

[Deleted member]

You're not willing to relinquish 1 hour of science class to "deal" with creationism?

Come on, man. That's not really much to ask for. It's enough for the kids to be informed of the notion yet not "brainwashed", because I know that's what people are afraid of. I see it as entirely reasonable to quickly dabble in it for a single period, no more. Comparing religions isn't a mandatory class. Science is. It's probably the only place it would fit.

And yeah, a lot of Catholic schools don't teach evolution. Maybe you got lucky or something, but I thought that was the case.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Why should we relingish an hour of science class? It's not science.

 

[Deleted member]

Here's my response to annoying one line posters that don't read the thread:

Why should we relingish an hour of science class? It's not science.

.......so?

 

[Kur]

Here's my response to annoying one line posters that don't read the thread:



.......so?

If one line is all you need then one line is all you need.

Science class is for science. You don't go to algebra to learn sentence structure and you don't go to woodshop to learn history.

So why on earth should we spend any time at all teaching a religious MYTH in a science class?

No I can't allow one hour to 'deal' with creationism because there is nothing to deal with. This isn't an opposing theory that is equally likely to be true, this is a made up fairy tale with no evidence. I could just as easily make up something about the universe being created by a combination of a dead buffalo and a pineapple. Then instead of actually gathering data and going through the scientific method to get my work published and accepted and put into science books (because I certainly could not), I would just petition the government and have it forcefully inserted into science class.

Just like my dead buffalo and pineapple 'theory', creationism has no right at all to be in a science class for even a minute.

And the whole "Teach both and let the kids decide!" is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is not up to kids to decide what is science and what isn't. Cold fusion was not proven impossible by showing the two theories to some kids and saying "which one do you guys like more?"

 

[GhostAnime]

why do you want to teach something that isn't science in a science class? isn't the point of school to teach facts?