Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools

[Taco Truck 🚚]

We are a Christian nation so yes in a social studies class we should get people up to speed.  Why not?  Just like if I moved to Israel I would want to learn a bit about Judaism.  And if I lived in Saudi Arabia I'd definitely make an effort to learn about Islam.  Just local knowledge.  Can't hurt.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

It depends on how it's taught.  We clearly descended from our primitive ancestors.  How would we propose to teach this?

If we were clearly descended from apes, where is your evidence?

primitive ancestors

[Enduro]

It depends on how it's taught.  We clearly descended from our primitive ancestors.  How would we propose to teach this?

If we were clearly descended from apes, where is your evidence?

primitive ancestors

Repeating yourself isn't proof.

[Enduro]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

First off, I haven't spoken to the "floating sky god" because he doesn't exist. Secondly, books written by people who weren't there is really the basis of literature, I mean was any Modern Historian alive for Julius Caesar? We have a incredible amount of proof of The Big Bang, Lucy, and the lead-up to who we are today. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is facts pure and simple. I would be extremely willing to accept Creationism/God in my heart if they had facts our their side. I wish they had the same attitude, but today we face polarization and the reluctance to look at the other side. It's sad really.

What facts do you have on your side?! The difference between Evolution and Creationism is Creationism has a better explanation for the world. Even the smallest living things are to complicated for the world to be an accident. Where's your incredible amount of proof? Mine is the world we live in.

Evolution is not an "accident" it's a process, which has been extensively documented, observed and theorised upon.

The definition of accident is: "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause." Let's say Evolution is real, it's an event, it also happened by chance, it also happen without a deliberate cause. What part of the definition doesn't scream Evolution? I can try to study falling down the steps, but it would still be an accident. I can theorize why I fell down the steps, but that doesn't make it any less an accident.

This is true only if one believes in atheistic evolution.  If one believes evolution is real and is a process guided by God, then human evolution wouldn't be an accident but rather God-directed.   

Genesis clearly states that He created the world in 6 days. "Evening then morning" and all that.

[bedstuy]

I actually agree with you on this; while I certainly didn't always hold this belief, I'd currently consider myself a young-Earth creationist as well.  My point is that one can believe in evolution and/or an old Earth and not think that creation was "just an accident"; I also think these issues can unnecessarily divide Christians, especially between the young-Earth model and old-Earth model.

How?  Haven't you seen the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the age of the earth?

[bedstuy]

I actually agree with you on this; while I certainly didn't always hold this belief, I'd currently consider myself a young-Earth creationist as well.  My point is that one can believe in evolution and/or an old Earth and not think that creation was "just an accident"; I also think these issues can unnecessarily divide Christians, especially between the young-Earth model and old-Earth model.

How?  Haven't you seen the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the age of the earth?

Yes (from a naturalistic point of view), but I learned a lot during Bible study this quarter at my church (which was titled "Genesis:  The Beginning of Everything").  We met every week and discussed the first few chapters of Genesis and as such, the controversy of creation vs. evolution came up a lot.  The first thing the pastor did was show the flaws in multiple old-Earth interpretations of Genesis:   there was a lot of meat to those critiques, but the long and short of it can be summed up in his words:  "Every non-literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't spend nearly enough time on the text itself and departs too quickly to outside sources."  We also did discuss some of the issues (fossils, rock layers, distant starlight) and how it can be explained by physical laws being different during Creation Week (thus, the long-age interpretations that come from the extrapolating uniformitarian assumptions go away) and the effects of the worldwide flood.  He also assigned some books by creation scientists to read for further study; while I haven't gotten them yet, I do look forward to buying some of them.  Also, I've discussed some with a structural biologist finishing up his doctorate at Stanford regarding the issue; he is a strong YECer and has studied evolutionary arguments in depth, including those within his field (and finding them quite lacking, in fact), and he believes that a lot of the evidence is forced to fit an evolutionary framework no matter how absurd it seems.

Keep in mind that the whole of the young-Earth paradigm rests upon the Bible being the word of God, including Genesis.  We take that by faith.  Since you reject that (as an atheist, I believe?), then of course the young-Earth position would seem ridiculous from your worldview.  You can mock what my stance as "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it," and you'd be right.  That is my stance (and my church's, which had caused me to reconsider the issue in the first place).

Note:  I'm probably a little less dogmatic than some others in my church in that I still could see some viability in the gap theory and other possible old-Earth interpretations, though I still feel that the young-Earth paradigm best matches the text. 

So many reasons that makes no sense!! But simple question: How do you account for radiometric carbon dating?  That puts the earth at 4.5 billion or so.

And, you actually believe Noah's ark happened!?  But, it's a mythical story, you have to take it as a metaphor, right?  Because, it clearly did not happen.  It's common sense.  How do we have kangaroos only in Australia?

[bedstuy]

That literally says kangaroos could have floated on logs to Australia.  Not a source.  Think about it.  We only have kangaroos in Australia.  If Noah's ark landed in the Middle East, we would have kangaroos in Asia, North American mammals in Asia, lemurs all over the world and Asian mammals in North America.  No?  They would all have the same chance to spread out from the boat?  Instead, animal geography is clear evidence of evolution.  Isolated species evolve according to their environment and they show they've been in reproductive isolation.  Australia and Madagascar by being isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years have their own unique species. 

So, how did kangaroos know they were supposed to only live in Australia, and how did they swim there?  It's not possible for a kangaroo to swim or sail a log from Asia to Australia.  No?  How did lemurs know to go to Madagascar and how did they get there?  That's fatal to the theory right there

On radiometric dating, that's not really a theory they present at all.  The truth is that there are many isotopes, all confirm the same date, and it's clear that 5000-6000 years as a date is bonkers.  Just bonkers.

[bedstuy]

I understand those scenarios may seem far-fetched, but I believe the Bible, so they're going to have to do.  As for radiometric dating, there are well-documented instances of the dates being way, way off.  Regardless, the laws of nuclear decay could have been very different during creation week pre-Fall, so that's a possibility as well.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

But, just think about it.  How would a lemur know to walk from Asia, across Africa and swim across the open ocean to Madagascar?  They can't swim either, much less over 200 miles from Africa to Madagascar.  Why can't you just accept that it's a metaphorical narrative?

If you look at the wildlife on those isolate places, you can tell they were isolated from the rest of the land for long periods of time, millions of years.  Literally the only explanation. 

[bedstuy]

Most Christians don't think the Noah's ark story is literally true.  Just read the link you posted.

If you tell me you think that's persuasive, you're stupid or a liar. 

[Goldwater]

I understand those scenarios may seem far-fetched, but I believe the Bible, so they're going to have to do.  As for radiometric dating, there are well-documented instances of the dates being way, way off.  Regardless, the laws of nuclear decay could have been very different during creation week pre-Fall, so that's a possibility as well.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

But, just think about it.  How would a lemur know to walk from Asia, across Africa and swim across the open ocean to Madagascar?  They can't swim either, much less over 200 miles from Africa to Madagascar.  Why can't you just accept that it's a metaphorical narrative?

If you look at the wildlife on those isolate places, you can tell they were isolated from the rest of the land for long periods of time, millions of years.  Literally the only explanation. 

With God, all things are possible.  If one presumes the Binle is true, then it is more than possible to construct a framework for geographic isolation of species.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html

But doesn't saying that in an argument like this mean you can literally dismiss any scientific evidence that doesn't agree with your worldview, regardless of how solid it is?

[bagelman]

I strongly believe that the objective absolute truth of cubic creation needs to be taught in our schools at once. The educated stupid ignore and suppress the absolute truth of time cube because it would indict them evil.

There is no teacher on Earth qualified to
teach Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-
Day Rotating Time Cube Creation Principle,
and therefore, there is no teacher on Earth
worthy of being called a certified teacher.

Americans are so dumb,
educated stupid and evil,
they have snot for brain.
Believers have snot brain.
Educated have snot brain.
God worship only needs
a snot brain, but it takes
Opposite Brain Analysis
to know Harmonic Life.

[bedstuy]

But, you would agree there has never been one piece of evidence that shows the earth is thousands of years old or that Noah's Ark happened.  Right?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

But, you would agree there has never been one piece of evidence that shows the earth is thousands of years old or that Noah's Ark happened.  Right?

I see God's word (the Bible) as the ultimate evidence, but I admit that if we look at nature alone then it is tough to provide strong evidence for both of those assertions (though the extreme worldwide presence of flood legends certainly lends some credibility to the Noah's Ark claim).  Hebrews 11:1 says that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," so I view creation and other Bible stories in that light.

Keep in mind, I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools; that's the prerogative of the local church.  The issue comes down to how we approach scientific evidence and how we construct models concerning the past:  do we put the Bible as the final authority or do we let scientific 'consensus' do that?  My position (and that of the church I attend) is very strongly the former.

Also, with respect to the evolutionary worldview, my pastor did an awesome knockout at 20:30 (and 25:00) during this sermon:

http://www.gbfsv.org/mediaPlayer/#sermonaudio/467

[bedstuy]

Your pastor is ignorant of evolution.  He says evolution is happenstance.  Nobody thinks that, it's natural selection and genetic mutation over time.  Pure strawman.  If you don't even understand the basics of evolution, how can you criticize it? 

And, as a matter of empiricism, you're church is interpreting the Bible wrong.  Remember, the Bible doesn't come with an instruction manual on how to read it.  There is nothing that says, take everything as literally as you possibly can.  A sensible person would read the Bible, along with context like history, science, etc.

Why not read the Bible in parity with the best evidence of science?  If you believe in God, you believe God gave you the intellect and created all the evidence that you can't help look at and understand.  Right?  So, you either have to take the evidence of the earth as God's statement as well.  Why would God create things like plate tectonics, the fossil record, the ability to determine dates using carbon dating if God didn't want you to find out about them?  Is God trying to trick you? 

If you honestly believe and aren't being purposefully self-delusional, you'll read the Bible in the light that BOTH science and the Bible can be true.  So, like on his second point, you'll agree that humans evolved from apes, but you see the intellect and the conscious mind of humans as the divinely unique aspect of humanity. 

What you're doing is actually extremely harmful to your religion.  Because, if I could prove that the earth is billions of years old and humans evolved, which I can, then the Bible is straight up false.  And, you even admit, there isn't one piece of evidence for Young earth creationism.  Not one piece of evidence.  It's all just misunderstanding evolution willfully and being ignorant, and then saying things like, "kangaroos floated on logs to Australia."

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Bedstuy, you've made it clear in multiple past threads that your opinion is that the existence of the Christian God is very unlikely in light of evolution/the Earth and the universe being billions of years old.  We agree on this, which is why I reject evolution/the old Earth paradigm.  And my pastor, a great man of God, is not ignorant of evolution; mutations and natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution would occur, but there is no directionality as to how those mutations occur in the first place.  Natural selection can only act on the genes already present, so the instructions coding for different features, like hands, feet, eyes, etc. is truly "happenstance" if evolution were true - the mutations just happened to form them, and natural selection favored those traits only once they entered the gene pool already.    Also, as an atheist, how are you an authority on how to read the Bible?  The Bible itself says "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit," so it seems silly to take advice from an atheist on how to interpret the Bible (granted, there are many Christian theistic evolutionists, and I respect them and their position, but I do disagree with it).

[bedstuy]

Bedstuy, you've made it clear in multiple past threads that your opinion is that the existence of the Christian God is very unlikely in light of evolution/the Earth and the universe being billions of years old.  We agree on this, which is why I reject evolution/the old Earth paradigm.  And my pastor, a great man of God, is not ignorant of evolution; mutations and natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution would occur, but there is no directionality as to how those mutations occur in the first place.  Natural selection can only act on the genes already present, so the instructions coding for different features, like hands, feet, eyes, etc. is truly "happenstance" if evolution were true - the mutations just happened to form them, and natural selection favored those traits only once they entered the gene pool already.

What is directionality?  You're missing the point.  The mutations are random, but the selection is not.  If a gene is helpful to survival, it would be more likely to be passed on.  So, creatures developed a very, very primitive form of an eye, or a leg and that was gradually changed through natural selection and evolution over time.  For example, a primitive eye can just be a cell that recognizes light or dark, which was actually critical in early earth because there was greater UV damage from the sun.  Sensing light was a critical advantage to survival for all of history, as was locomotion or anything else preserved by evolution.  These complaints are just based on ignorance of evolution.

Also, as an atheist, how are you an authority on how to read the Bible?  The Bible itself says "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit," so it seems silly to take advice from an atheist on how to interpret the Bible (granted, there are many Christian theistic evolutionists, and I respect them and their position, but I do disagree with it).

I have an opinion about critically reading any document, using critical thinking and common sense.  Your reading of the Bible shouldn't be invalidated by critical thinking or looking at other sources.  If you're reading the Bible correctly, everything you see should agree with it.  You're basically saying that you will always resolve that by ignoring science, instead of using science to help you read the Bible.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

RFayette, you're honestly scaring me. A lot of these are sounding like the same justifications Bushie used for years to not get his life back together. I'm probably not be the best person to try to get into this argument due to both my declining faith/low Church attendance/Catholicism as well as my lack of scientific credentials, but this is absurd! I mean, I know I've been in at least one situation where someone probably more versed in biology than myself tried to give me some scientific reason to be pro-choice and I ignored them, but this is honestly a terrifying way of responding here. As well, I myself have a hard time imagining all of the logical extensions of evolution. Nevertheless, if you're going to examine the dominant scientific framework of life's development on earth in a critical manner, the Bible deserves the same scrutiny. The Good Book is still a historical document--both as a record of events of the past as well as a product of those and other events.

I'm looking at the list of most recent posts that's below the "type a response window" right now. You refer to your pastor as a great man of God. Who is he? What are his academic and professional credentials? It seems you're also utilizing circular logic here: I can't trust bedstuy's beliefs on the Bible (though, really, whose beliefs can you trust on anything!?) because he is a non-believer, and the Bible says that non-believers can't be trusted.

Also, please never cite a chick tract. I don't care if you were looking at one out of curiosity or amusement or whatever, but the very fact that such a link would be available is concerning.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Excellent post Cathcon... but RFayette has been becoming more extreme in his beliefs recently and he should probably be left alone to believe them without prevoking him.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

As far as becoming like Bushie, I'm not in danger of failing out of school or becoming morbidly obese at the moment, so I don't think that's a huge concern.


I admit my logic may be hard-line; I'm definitely pretty fundamentalist, though I do respect more liberal Christianity, as espoused by BRTD and Madeline.  The approach others are suggesting to reading the Bible (at equal weight with science or alongside history) is an approach that I just have to reject.  Another thing covered during Bible study was not succumbing to "false neutrality" - i.e., looking at historical issues outside the lens of the Bible.  If you cede a "neutral territory," then you've already lost.  Instead, we should just take the Bible at face value as the #1 authority and then scientific findings can be re-interpreted in light of that.

[bedstuy]

As far as becoming like Bushie, I'm not in danger of failing out of school or becoming morbidly obese at the moment, so I don't think that's a huge concern.


I admit my logic may be hard-line; I'm definitely pretty fundamentalist, though I do respect more liberal Christianity, as espoused by BRTD and Madeline.  The approach others are suggesting to reading the Bible (at equal weight with science or alongside history) is an approach that I just have to reject.  Another thing covered during Bible study was not succumbing to "false neutrality" - i.e., looking at historical issues outside the lens of the Bible.  If you cede a "neutral territory," then you've already lost.  Instead, we should just take the Bible at face value as the #1 authority and then scientific findings can be re-interpreted in light of that.

How pathetic is your worldview if it completely rejects critical thinking? 

And, my point is not about equating anything.  It's textual interpretation.  When there is room for interpretation of the world, which interpretation do you pick?  You say, "face value."  But, what does that even mean.  Face value is taking the word and interpreting them in a certain way.

There's room in the Bible for evolution accepting interpretations and young earth creation.  Both are possible readings.  I'm proposing that if science can clarify ambiguity, you look at science and pick the interpretation in line with science. 

[publicunofficial]

I understand those scenarios may seem far-fetched, but I believe the Bible, so they're going to have to do.  As for radiometric dating, there are well-documented instances of the dates being way, way off.  Regardless, the laws of nuclear decay could have been very different during creation week pre-Fall, so that's a possibility as well.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

"I know this idea is stupid, but I have to find SOMETHING to justify my worldview."

[Alcon]

As far as becoming like Bushie, I'm not in danger of failing out of school or becoming morbidly obese at the moment, so I don't think that's a huge concern.


I admit my logic may be hard-line; I'm definitely pretty fundamentalist, though I do respect more liberal Christianity, as espoused by BRTD and Madeline.  The approach others are suggesting to reading the Bible (at equal weight with science or alongside history) is an approach that I just have to reject.  Another thing covered during Bible study was not succumbing to "false neutrality" - i.e., looking at historical issues outside the lens of the Bible.  If you cede a "neutral territory," then you've already lost.  Instead, we should just take the Bible at face value as the #1 authority and then scientific findings can be re-interpreted in light of that.

I hate to jump in with such a short comment after bedstuy and Cathcon delivered such thoughtful responses, but I think Cathcon's point warrants your attention:

"I can't trust bedstuy's beliefs on the Bible (though, really, whose beliefs can you trust on anything!?) because he is a non-believer, and the Bible says that non-believers can't be trusted. "

Isn't that effectively what you're arguing here?  You do realize that argument is both circular, and based on a completely logically arbitrary assumption?  You are basically saying "it doesn't matter what observation or inductive logic suggests if it suggests differently from what's in the Bible."  But how did you reach that conclusion, if not through observation or logic?

[TJ in Oregon]

As far as becoming like Bushie, I'm not in danger of failing out of school or becoming morbidly obese at the moment, so I don't think that's a huge concern.


I admit my logic may be hard-line; I'm definitely pretty fundamentalist, though I do respect more liberal Christianity, as espoused by BRTD and Madeline.  The approach others are suggesting to reading the Bible (at equal weight with science or alongside history) is an approach that I just have to reject.  Another thing covered during Bible study was not succumbing to "false neutrality" - i.e., looking at historical issues outside the lens of the Bible.  If you cede a "neutral territory," then you've already lost.  Instead, we should just take the Bible at face value as the #1 authority and then scientific findings can be re-interpreted in light of that.

But which parts ought we take at face value? Are we to assume, for instance (to give a really crazy example), that the master of the vinyard in Mark 12 was a real person? How about the sower? What about Christ's words in John 6 when he declares "Amen, Amen I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you"?

In the New Testament, apart from Revelation, it is usually fairly straightforward what is written to be taken literally and what isn't. But what about the Old Testament? What about the Book of Job? Did God and the devil really have that conversation? How about Esther? Most scholars seem to think that one is allegorical (and the Protestant version of it doesn't even mention God). Why should we assume all of Genesis ought to be taken literally?

St. Augustine wrote 1600 years ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

Atheism should be taught in public schools.

And private schools should be banned.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Atheism should be taught in public schools.

And private schools should be banned.

Why would a public school teach religion?