Debate: Creationism 'should be taught in science lessons'

From SCIAM:

"In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."

Empire, did you even read that link that I gave you? You are still saying things like "evolution can't be proven by the scientific method"- only it can be, and has been.

Also, I don't agree that schools should teach whatever the people in the region want. We need standardization in our public school systems! I learned in Catholic school that masturbation was a sin because you are married to god until you get married to a person- I would NEVER want my kid or anyone else's learning that kind of information on my tax dollar. Religious education can be incredibly inaccurate and dangerous. If you believe god created the universe, that is something you will be teaching your children outside of public school. Issues like gay marriage continue to be shot down because of the religious beliefs of the majority- the majority is not always right.

Here's the thing: You trust science and scientists to get you through your day, to get you to work, to get you on Current.com, to help you when you get sick, to solve energy problems and global issues. Yet in this situation, you relinquish trust? In this situation you say "Scientists weren't there in the beginning of the universe, so they don't know how it happened." Scientists weren't there when you were born; does that mean they don't know how it occured? Scientists and doctors aren't inside people's bodies, does that mean they don't know when they have tumors or have an idea of how those tumors formed? The evidence of evolution is seen in fossils, carbon dating, genealogy, biology, etc etc etc!

By the way, we CAN prove gravity exists. Just the fact that when you let go of something and it drops to the floor and that you can repeat that experiment over and over again with the same results IS PROOF.

Happily, he has never told the truth.

True, Creationists never evolved, but everyone else did.

Kent Hovind! LOL! He's in jail for fraud!

I will silence you all. Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or a hypothesis, it is a metaphysical research program and it is not testable science.

Go to youtube. Copy and paste this web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sApOIGdJKPo

In my view evolution is wrong, but as of right now it is accepted by the scientific community and so we need a balance in schools for the students to make an informed and logical decision as to what the believe.

Strictly speaking, very little can be proved is science, anyway. For example, we cannot prove that gravity exists, all we know is that from past experience, when we let go of a ball, it falls to the floor. Based on this evidence, we expect that when we let go of a ball some time in the future, it will also fall to the floor, but we have no way of proving this without actually carrying out the action.

Also see to the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw

science is not a belief system. Evolution is taught because of it's scientific evidence that supports the idea. Creationism is tied to religion. Religion doesn't belong in a science class therefore creationism should never be taught there. There is not scientific evidence to support creationalism therefore it doesn't fall under a topic of science to be taught in a science class.

It makes “First Amendment” sense to present students with all available data in their “search for truth” in any given area of study. Especially in a free society, students must be allowed the academic freedom to pursue every viewpoint possible. The most valid conclusion is always the one that best reflects all available data. One certainly cannot label our public schools as “free-learning-centers” when a most crucial area of study, i.e., origins, is oppressed by state and federal legislation permitting only one viewpoint.

My answer to the question, “Should creationism be taught in public schools?”, is, therefore, “Yes! It should be allowed to be taught in those local school districts where students and parents embrace creationism and desire that it be taught by knowledgeable instructors.” My specific rationale for answering in this way is as follows:

1. The constituents of each local school district should determine the parameters of educational instruction for that district and that district only.

2. Since neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins, not presently observable events, both should be formulated as scientific models, or frameworks, within which the student can then predict and correlate observed facts.

3. Such scientific models can neither be proven nor tested, only compared. Which model can explain, with the least amount of difficulty, the observable data in the real world?

4. Evolution is a faith-system. Creation is also a faith-system. Both of these systems have far-reaching implications for the life, world-view, and morality of the adherent. Both systems should be discussed in their entirety and presented as viable options. Therefore, each is as religious as the other. Each is as scientific as the other, as well.

5. Neither evolution nor creationism should be the only view presented in the public classroom if both views are desired by parents and students. Henry Morris of Institute for Creation Research has {27} stated, and I agree, “There are . . . strong scientific and pedagogical reasons why both models should be taught, as objectively as possible, in public classrooms, giving arguments pro and con for each. Some students and their parents believe in creation, some in evolution, and some are undecided. If creationists desire only the creation model to be taught, they should send their children to private schools which do this; if evolutionists want only evolution to be taught, they should provide private schools for that purpose. The public schools should be neutral and either teach both or teach neither” (ICR Impact, Vol. 1, p. 1).

Both Creationism and Evolution are theories that can't be proven by observable fact. Scientists say they have evidence of Evolution, but it still can't be proven by the scientific method. Creationists say they have evidence of Creation, but it still can't be proven by the Scientific Method. No human being was there in the beginning to observe and verify how matter and life came into existence.

The thing is Empire, there isn't a balance- evolution has more evidence, more scientific acceptance, and does not take "faith" to believe in, as you put it. In fact, science is all ABOUT being proved wrong- scientists are constantly learning more and attempting to correct theories based on MANY types of evidence- fossils, carbon dating and common evidence running through several scientific disciplines. I do not believe in evolution based on "faith" and "hope", but the many types of evidence that are presented.

You said yourself "Creationism is a belief in a Higher Being. It could be God, it could be Allah, it could be a ninja monkey in the sky."
Guess what: Teaching that a monkey ninja in the sky created the earth does NOT belong in SCIENCE CLASS- in fact, does it belong in school at all? What kind of lesson plan does teaching "god did it" entail?

You are starting off from the incorrect assumption that creationism and evolution are equally valid theories. Here's a good place to start on why this isn't the case: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&ref=sciam

Excerpt: "When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination."

One might as well teach how to play with playdoh as science...

Creationism is close but still wrong, its called jablubneyism it basicly how we are all actullay came from a giant oreo cookie in the middle of a rainbow waterfall, and we all praise Tony Little ahhhhuuuuuumm!

Why aren't you in church instead of blogging on current a belief in god is fine for you but our schools are for learning not sunday school.

I AM ONLY ASKING FOR A BALANCE HERE!

Like i stated, it takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in Creationism. I want the students to have the best access to all available data so that they can critically analyze it in all aspects.

Let them make the informed decision.

Yes keep your creationism ideas in church or a magic show. Until you can put your god on the witness stand I'll take science over your vodoo any day.

Not this damn debate again(no offense but It's been rehashed time and time again), If you want creationist teachings go to a private religious school.

Creationism, in general, is not excepted by the scientific community, and is not backed up by scientific evidence. It doesn't belong in a science classroom, it belongs in a religion class at the very most. Additionally, it's a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause of the US constitution. Why? because Creationism is specifically a Judeo-Christian belief. For the government to teach it in a science class would be biased towards Christians and more importantly, would only be based off of an old book that endorses the notions of slavery, violence, mass murder and a whole host of other things(yes it endorsed good things as well). It's a belief, plain and simple.

As to your claim that evolution is religious belief at the same level, thats absurd and blatantly untrue. Can it be proven 100%, no, but nothing can. Years and years and years of research has developed the theory of evolution, we have carbon dating, we have bones, and we have massive DNA similarities between our ancestors.Should the theory be developed further? Absolutely. Is it just as religious as creationism, absolutely not.

Neither evolution nor creationism should be the only view presented in the public classroom if both views are desired by parents and students. Henry Morris of Institute for Creation Research has {27} stated, and I agree, “There are . . . strong scientific and pedagogical reasons why both models should be taught, as objectively as possible, in public classrooms, giving arguments pro and con for each. Some students and their parents believe in creation, some in evolution, and some are undecided. If creationists desire only the creation model to be taught, they should send their children to private schools which do this; if evolutionists want only evolution to be taught, they should provide private schools for that purpose. The public schools should be neutral and either teach both or teach neither” (ICR Impact, Vol. 1, p. 1).