The debate "Schools should be allowed to teach creationism as long as they teach evolution as well" was started by
July 3, 2014, 5:44 pm.
188 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 91 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
chase posted 1 argument, tkershaw3 posted 1 argument, Rave posted 1 argument, ElleCalloway posted 1 argument, LC_CU_Cat_Catt posted 1 argument, Vigilante posted 2 arguments, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, river93x posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Shift_Logan posted 1 argument, JohnnieWalker posted 1 argument, Mr_Anonymous posted 11 arguments, Vigilante posted 5 arguments, Edward posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument, project_mayhem posted 1 argument, BRG1102478 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
tkershaw3, mariejans520, chase, VengeanceRider, jourdynpayne, KatJoSmasH, Rave, wmd, true_debate_life, ananthusk, ElleCalloway, unknown, Josh, kennediharris515, LC_CU_Cat_Catt, TheDentedHelmet, Unfathomable, lakly, Vigilante, Socrateezus, chickenwingedwin, MACE, Portia_Yov, zelda42o, KaterinaVinther, Officialrenaldi, Somya, marxist4life, egybro, Gurkavitch, Sosocratese, Vikram, jessicaS02, Sasha777, l_ramos, debater377, andrej, Hayleenikkole, river93x, navabeans, Hjkp98, LeaderOfDiscussion, BloodyCarousel, invincible_01, resiliently, j_drisk87, Superr1fifty, Egert_Clueless, TmlxIss2cool, daddytone716, frozen_emily, gtomk, AdamChase, JMP9940, Bodaciouslady16, Mike861, DarkSkyz06, debunkmyths, keepscrolling, Untamed, judge, countrybumpkin and 126 visitors agree.
Shift_Logan, AllieAlexandriaSchrader, Agent_Firefox, JohnnieWalker, Mr_Anonymous, Steven9001, Disasterology, zoah, Edward, uitat, Flimpy, Bailz, Curious_Student, braxton414, amwright, sophistry, mdavis1309, SpiritofDeath, PsychDave, DeWthaDeW, Hollister_boy, kennamarlaina1214, ferri, giveuspeacedamnitt, Mikey2k, I_Voyager, Mukund_98, Razzakel, liamjosephcash, indianlion, rickrollross, project_mayhem, Preploukus, Mrcolaman, Carina, nick_parrott, futurelawyer192, stormshy, BRG1102478, Getmurked, Mastermind, transfanboy, sighnomore99, soullesschicken, RyanWakefield, Delta_Force01 and 45 visitors disagree.
You do realize to do so would violate the constitution. yes private schools can teach it if they choose to but a public school doing so would mean that the government is taking a stand on religion. you might as well ask should we outlaw every religion besides Christianity if your going to ask that.
To be a creationist, is to be in disagreement with 99 % of scientists and in agreement with men who did not know the the earth rotated around the sun.
Wouldn't your argument bring into question which creation story to teach? The Christian one is no more likely than any of the other creation myths in history. They should taught in the same context. In anthropology classes or in theology classes. I think there is value in that type of teaching. However, why should creationism be taught in a science classroom. If there was a competing scientific theory for speciation then I agree, that controversy should be taught. But creationism is a non-scientific account of speciation and thus has no place in the science classroom.
Creationism should most definitely be taught in schools not as sheer fact but as a possibility, maybe not when their young but in high school when their old enough to make their own decisions. We accommodate those that don't believe by taking out the pledge of allegiance to prove that our schools unbiased and won't force anyone to take an oath under god, so if we we're truly unbiased we would at least teach Creationism as a possibility. And if bothers you that much put your kid in school that doesn't have religion. That's what parents have to do right now if they want their kids to have some religious influence. By the way to those that think Creationism is a bunch of made non sense, and it very well could be but their are still a vast majority of people that still believe in some sort of organized religion. So keep that in mind before you blatantly disrespect someone's belief like an ignorant fool. This is a debate app we should at least try to respect other people's opinions
No creationism in schools. They can pitch religion in places of worship. I don't want you to shove your made up ideas down my kids throat in a public institution.
I agree, schools should be allowed to teach creationism. There is a place for it. That place is called anthropology or religious studies. It should be taught alongside the other creation stories. It would make us a better culture to understand the believes of others and those of times past.
However, creationism has no place in the science classroom.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I misplaced my phone a while back and just recently found.
Also wrong. You seem to know next to nothing about evolution. It builds on existing structures. You don't "lose" things, they change and adapt. This is animals (us included) have vestigial structures left over from evolution that serve no purpose anymore.
Stephen Hawking isn't doing anything wrong. He's saying WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY YET. He is raising the questions that are on the frontier of science.
Really. God is the reason for everything we know in science? Everything. Because there is literally no evidence of any sort that suggests god did it. The closest thing to evidence you have is human ignorance about the workings of this cosmos. The bible has made erroneous claims about the universe. To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson "In revelations it talks about how stars will fall out of the sky's and land on earth and angels will emerge from them. To say that means you lack any understanding of what those things are, so anybody who tried to make proclamations about the physical universe got the wrong answer." God and science are the exact opposite of in union.
All of those things of which we judge others by are subjective. There is no definitive objective morality or perfection Pascal's wager is a poorly constructed argument. First of there is only one version of atheism. There is millions of gods and thousands of individual religions. How do you know that you're worshipping the right god and not angering the true. Also if atheism is right then you lose the only you have. Your small amount of time that the atoms that are you have to be a conscious entity of this universe.
You misunderstand. The law of causality applies to everything with a finite form WHICH your bible says god has on multiple occasions. It argues against the biblical definition of a god. So it is you who's "hypothesis" would require a god creating god creating god ad infinitum.
Having read the complete unabridged works of Aristotle a small number of his "teachings" are "unrivalled". However his over all philosophy is a joke.
Yes, written by the same people who wrote the bible. A little suspicious don't you think.
Actually there are writings similar to Darwin's " On the origins of species" and yes we have actually observed speciation. Domestication is also a form of evolution except we are the deciders of what succeeds or dies. Also you're implying that evolution on the scale you want occurs during a single life time. Humans have been around for only seconds compared to the billions of years that the earth has.
No I don't find it suspicious or coincidental. Its exactly what I would expect to find left over from a age of religious zealots. Once again you are using something we don't know why happens in science and trying to label its as evidence for a god.
That is because of a myriad of reasons. Fossils do still form occasionally. The issue is we have developed so much of the planet and the side effects of doing that. Actually fossils with scales and organs are not as common as you imply. However, the dead fish's flesh is eaten, not its skeletal structure. Also the ones commonly found are not like modern fish. A lot of them had hard shell or exoskeletons. The reason for finding amounts is because of the extinctions. However nothing from the Precambrian era will ever show up in another era, which is exactly what you'd expect to find if there was a worldwide flood. And really there isn't a lot of fossils compared to the amount of life that used to be. Just keep in mind that 99.9% of all organic beings that ever existed are now extinct.
The proof of degrees in perfection.
We evaluate everything in terms of their being lesser or great than a standard of true, perfect, good, noble and so on, we have standards of how things should be.
but we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect, good, noble in every way for us to set that standard by, which would be the most perfect, noblest and greatest being we call God.
lastly, lets just say for an arguments sake that you were right, that God didn't exist and nothing happened after we died.....now I would lose nothing at all in that result.
but if I was right and God did exist......then once again I would still lose nothing.......but you would lose everything!!
so either way you lose in the end
Please offer me a scientific explanation for incorruptible bodies because apparently there is not one.
bit of a coincidence that the Incorrupt bodies are highly religious don't you think?
I did say BESIDES the earths natural movement, first note that very few fossils are forming today and then only in a case of rapid burial.
what happens when a fish dies?
it either floats to the top, or sinks to the bottom,decays and is eaten by scavengers.
yet there are so many fish fossils so well preserved that even the scales and organs are preserved.
obviously there was no time for decay or bacteria to form, furthermore most fossils occured in huge fossil groups, where many species from different habits are mixed in a watery grave.
please feel free to check this.
That is my point!
the law of causality is God!
there has to be a primary cause yes?
and the big bang does not knock up to those requirements of this law because it would be a chain of infinite causes which as you know isn't logical yes?
that makes God the primary cause.
I agree with you to a certain point about Aristotle, but a great number of his teachings I'm sure you'll admit are unrivalled, and this one in particular is proved on a daily basis.
there are museum pieces with Jews curses and writing against the Egyptians for their tyranny, dating the same time as the enslavements.
you are again welcome to check that for yourself.
on the other side though, there are absolutely no history records of any kind of evolution over any period of history before Darwins writings! ( which I don't know about you but I would remember to write about something like that if it happened, in fact I would consider it huge history )
Do you know how many species would die out during their evolution?
look up how they explain the evolution process, many different animals lose their primary functions ( grasping their food, running ect... ) for a substantial time that would result in their helplessness and rapid extinction.
so if Stephen Hawkings can't answer his questions, what is he doing wrong?
as for God being the excuse for what we don'tvknow yet in science,
God is the answer to EVERYTHING we know in science, in the past, present and future.
God and science are in union, not opposition cont.
It's as if you're implying there is anything else with evidence to explain. Your claims and beliefs are at best a hypothesis with no evidence. Of course his book raised a lot of questions. That because we do not know all the answers yet. So if that's how you want play your God, as an answer for what we don't know YET in science, a God of the gaps if you will, your God is but the remnants of an ignorant species trying to comprehend the universe. He is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance about the universe.
Yes I did highlight the joke section. Probably because its the internet and there is no way to convey sarcasm.
So again, please offer me some direct, observable, tangible, evidence for creationism and at the very least poke a hole in one of "those theory's"
I fail to see the relationship between incorruptable bodies and evidence. Please explain.
Yes fossils do have a reason for being there. And it is the natural change of the earth. ex. Plate tectonics, sediment build up etc. However if there was a worldwide flood you would find evidence of it. You would see disturbed fossil records. And you don't.
The law of causality applies to everything with a form. That includes your supposed God. His own book says he has a form on various occasions. (If you want the passages just ask) Also it is a law and is possible to be disproven (however unlikely) so therefore its not a fact. And as our
scientific models suggest, laws, if any would be drastically different pre-bigbang. Now what seems more logical to you on your own premises. A all powerful being waiting an infinite amount of time to create stuff or emptiness lacking time, space, laws, anything. Absolutely nothing. Its like trying to ask what is south of the south-pole. Nothing. Also police use it because it is common sense. BUT common sense is merely derived from everyday experiences. Therefore common sense does not work to explain non everyday things.
Also I wouldn't use things to try to explain the universe that came from Aristotle. His view was that the universe followed common sense/simple/ordered laws put there by God so he believed the laws of the universe could understood and discovered by simply thinking about them and reasoning them out. There is an innumerable number of times where Aristotle took followed that path even when what he formulated defied his own observations.
And whether he was the son of god has everything to do with it. Him supposedly dying for everyone's sins in the main point. And no, a lot of there "ramblings" have not checked out. For example, the mass Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence other than the Bible and its older version, the Torah. This matters because the Egyptians were very meticulous about keeping track of history, even the not so flattering parts.
Yes it is a theory. That's because we are discussing the cutting edge of science. However its a theory with evidence supporting it. You haven't produced a single fact that supports your claims. The closest you've come was the law of causality which if anything supports my claims have produced several "facts" as you like to call theItsYes he does raise good points. The funny thing though is how you keep throwing the word theory around.cont
Primarily mutation's. Changes in the genetic code.
Changes in DNA? Could you enlarge on that?
Incorruptible bodies are the bodies of religious, namely Catholics, who have remained incredibly well preserved for centuries.
though studied by scientists it is unknown how this has come about.
your right, I am a Catholic, I however I don't believe in a emotional faith and therefore have researched religions to find the most logical, which was the Catholic faith.
stereotyping here I'm
guessing your an atheist?
please correct me if I am wrong.
Ok for one, the majority of fossils found would have no explaination for being how far they are in the ground (even taking earths natural change into consideration) unless there had been a catastrophic event sometime in history, that is logical yes?
The most universal of all scientific principles, (a fact by the way not a theory) is that of causality, or the law of cause and effect, there is no question of its universal acceptance in the world of science.
this law is used by police investigators on a daily basis to pinpoint the problems and determine outcomes.
an example of the law is chair (cause) = wood, materials (cause) = Carpenter (the primary cause) without that primary cause, the rest would of been useless, see where I'm coming from?
there can be cause after cause but they all have a source ( the primary cause )
so this leads to a choice, (1) an infinite chain of non primary causes (no foundations for causes and effects)
or (2) an uncaused Primary cause of all causes ( the one, eternal, omniscient cause that initiates all causes)k
do I have to explain that more?
Whether Jesus is the son of God has absolutely nothing at all to do with when the bible was written, Jesus never even asked for the bible to be written!
who it was written by is a much better question lucky their ramblings have checked out.
no need to explain quantum mechanics, I have sufficient knowledge of it.
Please please please use a fact for once!!!!
quantum fluctuations is a theory!!!
look it up for goodness sakes!
I am arguing the immaterial side and yet am still producing the most facts in this conversation!!
Stephen Hawkings points are impressive, sadly, like you he also dealed in theories.
his book created more questions than he answered.
The myth and legend comment was highly sarcastic humour which of all things to highlight you highlighted a joke!
no matter how much you talk about a theory it does not make it a fact!
Please elaborate on what you mean by "incorrupt bodies"
And quite frankly what we observe in history disproves creationism. (For text minimalization purposes and the statistical likely hood I will infer you are a Christian. please let me know if I'm wrong.)
For example, if Noah's flood happens you expect to find fossil records to be all messed up. But they're not. If Jesus was actually the son of God then tell me why his "legacy" wasn't written until 30+ years later by fringe groups that fit nowadays categorization as cults who wanted to control his image. you talk about questioning information yet you can't do it yourself. Also Feynman's sum of histories explains why those two atoms would find each other. That phenomenon is called quantum fluctuations. Again for text limitations I would educate on quantum mechanics and how it pertains to that but it would be to long. So just go get the book the grand design by Stephen Hawking. He breaks it down to simple terms. And you saying Evolution should in the myth\legend section. Really. Are you really that dumb. It is the most viable, most evidentially supported logical conclusion possible. Creationism belongs there though. It fits the criteria for it. And is silly enough to belong there. Your Jesus is just a wannabe rip off of the Egyptian god Horus. If you want to believe in foolish things, that's fine. But the moment you start bringing it into schools I'll see you in the courtroom. We need a generation of rational, educated, people.
So please offer some direct evidence of creationism or go sit down and be quiet.
Transitionary fossils. Observed speciation. Observed changes is DNA. Domestication. And the fact it stands up to predictions. For example, Humans have 46 chromosomes. The great apes (our cousins) have 48. considering that losing a whole chromosome will kill it, if we were evolved from a common ancestor you'd have to find were chromosomes had fused, if not evolution has failed. Guess what they found. That our chromosome #2 has been fused with another. And also I have read and studied "those people". There was nothing suspicious there. And evolution has been one of the most trial and error tested ones. And it stood tall to them all. The ONLY scientific controversy over evolution has been how fast, by what mechanism, etc.
Now to my favorite part. I like how you assume I got my info from the media. That actually made me laugh. Literally out loud. No I don't trust the media. And the vast majority either think evolution is an evil atheist plot or don't care about it.
Because a fact is definitive and true. As in cannot be wrong. Even some so called laws have been proven wrong. Nothing other than math is ever truly a fact.
Also just to address the claim before someone tries to call it. No Darwin never once renounced his views of evolution. The person who claimed to have been there and saw it lied. His daughter, Henrietta, who WAS by his side at his passing not only said he never said that, but that she never even was there.
Incorrupt bodies for a first....
every action proved by history, have you even read up on creationism??
and you question creationism, but you cannot even prove your own exsistence when it gets down to philosophy and theology.
The Big Bang Theory ( which they are teaching in schools as a fact )
the odds of two atoms coming together to produce that bang is over a gazillion to one........let alone thousands coming together to produce that same effect.
evolution belongs in the myth and legend section of school, or better still in a science lab.
but yet instead of researching all this you choose to listen to everything someone with a degree will tell you, or worse the media because its on tv.
What proof do you have to show that creationism is a proven fact?
Mr. Anonymous....if theory and fact is the same thing then why are they spelt differently?
on a serious note though, theory is an idea, while a fact is a result of proved theory founded on evidence.
instead of trial and error which is the regular routine of science, evolutionists have been trying to create their own evidence for years....if that doesn't send off the alarm bells for you!
if you would give me a solid piece of evidence for evolution that is not flawed I would be amazed.
if you do your homework into Darwin and the people involved in the "evolution" theory instead of listening to media you might just surprise yourself.
Wrong. Evolution is a fact. Its called a theory because its the explanation of a scientific phenomenon. The arguments with actual logic and reason involved are over how and by what natural mechanisms. Laws are just observations and formulas. There is no explanation.
Example: Newtons laws of motion
Ex of theory: Pythagorean theorem, it explains the relationships of legs to hypotenuse.
In the words of Bill Nye. "If that challenges your beliefs, its time to question your beliefs."
evolution is still a theory, greenhouse is still a theory...not facts!
children are filled up with theories which places them in a little fantasy world because none of these have been proved!
they wouldn't know a fact if they fell over one now.
creationism is a fact, but they won't teach a fact because it might hurt someone's feelings...seriously?? that is a massive problem right there!
Evolution isn't a fact, so it shouldn't be taught as though it were.
Well considering there is evidence for evolution and the general concept of evolution is a scientifically proven fact and that "intelligent design" and "super natural creation" have either evidence against them (int. des.) or no evidence (S.N.C.) no it shouldn't be. It should be taught, however, right alongside Odin and friends in a mythology class.
Schools can teach whatever the heck they want. Everything is knowledge. We should learn about homophobes and homosexuals, about anti-feminism and feminists, about rapists and abortion. And then, and only then, when we are well informed should we form our own opinions.
There's no conflict between God and science. The conflict is between faith and some worldviews of science
First of all, schools are full of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Second of all, things like beliefs, knowledge, facts, science, etc are fluid and dynamic. Science is surrounded by belief. Because something is "rooted in science" doesn't mean that a researcher 20 years down the road won't turn the whole thing on its head. That's the ever-evolving nature of science. So much of the science of previous eras is now considered just simply wrong. I'm not saying that will happen with the theory of evolution. That one seems like it is likely objectively true. Nevertheless...
Lastly, it's about choice and freedom. Who are we to mandate what people learn? That's saying that some authority knows the truth and must force it to be taught to children. I don't feel that the U.S. or any state government has a monopoly on truth. In fact, if there's any institution that does a whole lot of lying to our faces, it's the U.S. government.
I'm not saying creationism is true. I find it a ridiculous proposition personally. But people should be allowed access to any and all information. We should not censor opinions or viewpoints because some transient majority happens to agree with it at this particular time in history.
Why stop there? Let's teach them about Santa Claus and the Eastern Bunny too.
A literature course covering creation stories from the Bible, Quran, Native American spiritual texts, Tripitaka, and etc. seems highly valuable.
Creationism is a religious belief, not a theory rooted in science, like evolution is. So no, creationism shouldn't be be taught in schools - or, at least, not in science class. Religious Studies or something, sure, why not, as long as they teach about other religions' maker-myths too.