The debate "Should creationism be taught in schools" was started by
February 10, 2016, 11:21 am.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 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.
Delta_Force01 posted 16 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, jfischthecat posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 12 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
Kopano_98, yanny_banny, meduka, Bodaciouslady16, YEET, lolopopo, ProDavid, Shrivali_16 and 26 visitors agree.
historybuff, ProudAmerican888, jfischthecat, Sumerian, sickboyblonde, RyanWakefield, Anabelle_Granger, JDAWG9693, TheExistentialist, Batman and 13 visitors disagree.
The problem is that evidence isn't accepted by the scientific community as scientific evidence so it shouldn't be called scientific evidence and therefore doesn't belong is a science class. We wouldn't accept the unscientific claims of other religions so it's dangerous to say we should accept the claims of our religion. Christianity may not always be dominant.
More importantly, when Christianity is contrasted with intellectualism and science (like what woukd happen in a science class) who do you think will win? Will Christianity be an attractive idea for kids to accept if the weaknesses of their ideas are discussed in school? No
Religion is of the heart. Trying to argue with scientists and intellectuals is what converts audiences away from Christianity. You're shooting yourself in the foot.
The fact that he wouldn't publish his work in a peer reviewed journal, does diminish his reputation, as it is the standard for his profession. This begs the question of whether or not his article is reputable and should be considered scientific at all. Furthermore, the fact that he claimed to have original thoughts and ideas on the subject and yet simply repeated already existing arguments rather than his own original ideas means he lied or at the very least misrepresented his position.
if you want to discuss one of his ideas in particular I'd be happy to do so. You, however, only gave a name without contacts and without further direction as to which of his arguments you want people to refer to, therefore a critique of his professional credentials and history is appropriate.
If you'd actually like to discuss any of his actual writings, you must be specific in which argument you want to present and which you want a response to.
Who considers his arguments misrepresented or non existent.
Just because someone repeats something of proof doesn't mean that his reputation should be dropped.
Please provide specific "evidence" he uses since his writing is largely based on circular logic. Anyone not familiar with Lisle here is a quick summary:
Jason Lisle's explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak. It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically". Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything and he's no stranger to wall-bangingly circular logic. It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do.
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis. He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals" - quite a backtrack from his earlier blog posts that seemed to indicate that he was actually doing original research himself. Despite pimping and hyping his publication on the AiG blog, he was noncommittal to the idea of a "non-technical writeup".
Some of the points put into his essays and talks - to highlight perceived problems in "secular" theories - have been considered as highly misrepresented, or even non-existent. Some of them are, in fact, well known creationist arguments that he simply rehashed.
Earth’s magnetic field is decaying
Recession of the Moon
Deep time is apparently a "false god"
Claims that most extra-solar plants are larger than Jupiter and close to their star - This is simply because we can detect such planets much more easily than lower mass planets in longer period orbits. It should also be noted that since the time of his writing, we have discovered more earth-like planets in the Goldie-lock-zone
Google Jason Isle, a creationist. The Bible doesn't do experiments and write them down like a science class does, but when proving creation, there is a lot of evidence concerning it in the universe.
Snopes is not perfect by any means. However, they disclose their source information so you can INDEPENDENTLY verify their conclusions and claims.
Their claim that World News Daily Report being a fake news organization (where the claim about chariots at the bottom of the red sea was first published), is backed up by a disclaimer on the World News Daily Report Website. Their own disclaimer reads:
"World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction."
Because you didn't bother to actually research the topic you never actually found this information.
Furthermore, I gave additional supporting evidence from a clearly CHRISTIAN site that backed up the snopes fact check. In addition to that I gave you a direct quote from a an actual expert in the field: Joe Zias, the former Curator of Archaeology and Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority who directly disputes your claims. Again Ron Wyatt is not an expert in the field he claims to be studying; his lack of expertise is public record, so whether or not you like snopes, you can verify their claim independently since they actually publish their source information (a sign of a credible source by the way).
That means I gave you 3 corroborating sources from vastly different perspectives; all of which question the validity of your claim. Your only source is a youtube video which has no source data published.
Scripture is our evidence for Creationism. We may know it as fact because it is the word of God, but that does not make it scientific. Scientific facts are based on observations and experiments that are extrapolated or generalised. Faith comes from the heart. That's why it is our faith, not our evidence, that God admires.
Putting our faith in the science class risks precedent for putting the faith of other religions there too. I never want the Hindu, sikh, or any creation myth in the science class just because a sizeable portion of the population may believe it.
Also, the science class is not a good battleground for Christianity. Science frames faith as inherently weak so when contrasted with the math, experiments and observations in science it's more likely to sway people away than convert them.
Also, snopes.com is a biased website that states the left agenda as good and positive. Foesnt say anything bad about the left. The left is more against Christianity that right. You are giving biased support.
If you went to tour local cheeseburger restaurant and asked everyone how the jelly cheeseburger is, wouldn't you not get it if a lot of them said it tasted terrible.
Every day we go off of reviews from other people as to what we should do, where we should go, etc. I don't hang my entire argument on popularity, its just a fragment of the blanket that is my argument.
"It is the most populous religion"
"Protestantism. Presbyterian, specifically. Why is it the most bought book in the world?"
"Why else would people buy it if they didn't believe that it was true. And its been bought for 2000 years"
you made these claims to support your belief that the bible should be taught in school....How is that not a fallacy of popularity type argument.
I didn't say that it should be read based on popularity. Have you ever read the book. Its not very entertaining. Why else would people buy it if they didn't believe that it was true. And its been bought for 2000 years. In some areas people even risk their or other lives in order to retrieve it for themselves and others.
"Is that intended for me, because that has nothing to with Christianity. 1+1=2"
I don't think you understood the analogy. It's a critique of your logic. Since you made the case that the bible should be taught based on popularity not fact I made the analogy of math being taught by popularity not fact.
"As I just explained to another gentleman, how can you deal with various parts of chariots rotting on the bottom of the Red Sea?"
This is a claim originally made by World Daily News: which is a fake new source. Just a little bit of digging would have led you to this. Furthermore there are no primary reports of this discovery. Please don't bother with youtube clips, they are not credible sources of information. Ron Wyatt; the person claiming to have discovered the Chariot wheels claims to be an Archeologist but just doing a tiny bit of research shows that he is in fact a Nurse Anesthesiologists who has ZERO training in Archeology and claims to have found and that he claims to have found almost 100 biblically-related items all within a decade, including:
-the fire and brimstone balls from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
-The tower of Babel
-The Ark of the Covenant
-The original 10 commandment tablets
The list of fantastical discoveries should in and of itself raise questions about any discovery Ron Wyatt claimed to have made. This didn’t stop his “discovery” of chariot wheels spreading. It has been repeated in articles and books and documentaries though. In actual fact, Ron Wyatt’s work has universally debunked by respected archaeologists and scholars. Joe Zias, the former Curator of Archaeology and Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority said, “Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem…We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever
Even religious sites like Patheos have debunked the story you're referring to:
When is enough evidence enough evidence?
You haven't provided any evidence. So the second you provide a credible source with credible evidence, that will be enough. Stop using sources that are only there for confirmation bias and do some opposition research before you buy into ju
Is that intended for me, because that has nothing to with Christianity. 1+1=2, and the Bible doesn't state otherwise in terms of problems you may have with it. As I just explained to another gentleman, how can you deal with various parts of chariots rotting on the bottom of the Red Sea? How is it recorded in the book of Exodus when they couldn't dive down and see what was there? You must look at facts.
When is enough evidence enough evidence? Do you want to know the real truth hear or is your mind made up as to what is already true.
I enjoy writing essays concerning heated topics. Instead of saying what people want to hear, I tell the truth, regardless of what response it might bring. Stand where it is true.
If popularity is the only thing that matters; then if Islam ever took over as the most popular religion you'd have to advocate for the Koran to be taught in school. The same goes for Hinduism or any other religion. You'd essentially kill the concept of teaching truth and replace it with teaching popular opinion.
So if 1+1=4 became more popular you'd rather teach that than 1+1=2? or would you teach them as co-equal?
Fallacy of popularity.
Protestantism. Presbyterian, specifically. Why is it the most bought book in the world?
Because most people don't read the damn book, those who point it out are put down, shunned, and even murdered. And, it is NOT the most popular religion. Hinduism has more followers. Also, what sect of Christianity is the truth? "Christianity" is not one religion
Also, why is there even Christianity if it is filled with contradictions. 2000 years has not hurt it. It is the most populous religion. Why is that if there is contradiction.
The entire Bible surrounds Christ. His coming. All the shadows, everything points to Him.
Also, you didn't refute any of what I just said. You're rebuttal was, "It's fact." That is not an argument.
What?? You dont need satellites to show that the Earth is a sphere, nor did they have them when they mathematically proved that the earth is a sphere
There's WAY more to Christianity that just the existence of Jesus. For example, the Bible? Which I have just shown is wrong more times than it's right (hyperbole, but still)
It's fact. As for contradictions, you interpret it wrong. The sphere, for example. They didn't have satellites orbiting.
Jesus proves Christianity. If he failed all of Christianity would fail.
So, yeah. Use common sense and read the Bible again.
It has been demonstrably proven that the world flood didn't happen and the ark couldn't fit even close to all the animals, or even the necessary for, climate restrictions, waste management, etc. The Bible talks about multiple gods in the Old Testament, implying an original polytheistic religion that later became monotheistic (as the evolution of religions often becomes), it says that the earth was created before the sun, that the sun and stars are different (or at least implies such), that the earth is a circle, NOT a sphere!, and much more, not no even mention the internal contradictions which you can look up yourself because I'm not even gonna start listing that fat list.
and if someone believed that God formed our universe via the big bang, and shaped life via evolution... nothing about jesus rising disputes that.
Use common sense and read my argument. I'm not saying your dumb. The Bible isn't just a religious text. It's history. connect the pieces of the puzzle. How else would Christ be ressurected. He was perfect, and He said He was God. If He want that would've been a sin and He wouldn't have risen.
extremism is harmful to critical thinking. unfortunately religion has a high disposition for extremism
That's biblical evidence (not even good evidence, I'll add), which is a fallacy of authority. Give evidence from outside the bible
christs death prove nothing about creation
I already have. Read my argument about Christ's death that's down the page
People have every right to believe it, but you have to agree, Nemiroff, that religion is largely harmful; to critical thinking at the least and to livelihood and life in general at worst.
unfortunately science hasnt yet, and likely never will, develop a way to detect the divine. until then, your proposition is a matter of faith. and you have every right to believe that.
Extra-biblical evidence? You've now made a claim; prove it.
God created the heavens and the earth. The heavens is the universe.
i have never seen a nothing for something to come from. does that mean nothing never existed?
what does your thermodyanamic confusion with the big bang have to do with evolution?
we dont know what was before the big bang, so noone says it came from nothing. that was explained to you by buff in the abortion thread.
I've never seen God, either. Or a dying star. Or an atom. Just because I dont see something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
And, you haven't replied to my other proposals on the universe
As you have guessed, God is eternal. Genesis 1 testifies that God created the heavens (the universe).
Hair you ever seen something come from nothing?
Advancements in quantum mechanics may prove that wrong. That aside, if you so fervently proclaim that something can never come from nothing, where did God come from? If God was "eternal" (as I suspect you will rebut with) then why can't the universe be eternal (among other possible explanations)? Or, like suggested previously, who's to say that that law can't be wrong? We've been wrong plenty of times before.
The chief thing against Evolution is Christ.The first Law of thermodynamics states that something can't come from nothing. That explodes the theory of a big bang. Therefore, Someone had to create it.
Jesus raised from the dead after three days. Five hundred eye witness accounts testify to that. We know He was dead and not carried away after the cross alive because blood and water poured forth, which is a symptom of death by asphyxiation. During His life, Jesus Christ stood for all of God's commandments. If He hadn't he would've not risen. Therefore, when He said that before Abraham was, He was, He was telling the truth. If He is God (and He is), then He also stood for every word of the Bible. Hence, Gen. 1 to Rev. 22 is true. God created the heavens and the earth, and everything else. This all supports each other. Therefore, Creation is fact.
evolution is proven not by a single fact but by all the facts. it is the only theory that effectively explains the many similarities amongst living things, the chronologically increasing complexity, the vestigial features, the convergent features, and the interdependance of ecosystems.
sure "god did it" explains anything everything, but having a natural explanation that covers all that with 2 simple statements is telling.
creationists defend creation only by trying to refute evolution, pretending that if its not evolution creation will simply be assumed without reason. if they do provide arguments, they are 1000 year old philosophical arguments about unmoved movers or watchmakers. and philosophy is not science. so whatever your views on evolution are, creationism should not be taught in school.
There is no evidence for religion. There is faith.
Evolution is well documented scientific fact. It is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory. There is absolutely no dispute among scientists about whether evolution occurs.
Creationism is a mythological story spread by one religious group. I have no issue with it being taught along side the beliefs of other regions. But it has no place in a science class, or any class other than a religious studies class.
Explain how we should then teach Evolution, which you can't see, hear, taste, touch, or smell? You will say with evidence, and that is exactly what Christians use. The first law of thermodynamics clearly disproves the Big Bang Theory.
They can teach it all they want in Christian schools, but it has zero place in public school.
I agree with Dave. I don't think it should be taught as fact, but as a religion, given that's what it is.
Creationism should be taught alongside other creation stories in religious studies classes. Other than that, no, it should not.
absolutely not. religion has no place in a publicly funded school. they should teach facts.