Creationism, should it be taught in School?

kimrari said:
yes it should be taught.

its funny how its ok to teach evolution, when BOTH EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM ARE UNPROVEN THEORIES.

no matter the argument, no one, can get past the fact that
Click to expand...

its unproven like physics is unproven.
 
Only if the scientificly verrifiable parts of each theory were presented in such a manner, along with honest criticism of apparent inaccuracy or assumptions of each, then yes.
Just like it is done in comparitive religions classes. They presents the facts of each, but does not flame either ones view.
 
Vlasic said:
How is creationsism the negative?

Do you actually think before you post? what's negative about it?
Click to expand...

I am trying to say, that Evolution and Creationism, are two irreconcilable views, meaning they're totally different.

That's all.
 
DaNGr said:
Just as creationism, instead it would be taught in a philosophically and religiously neutral manner.
Click to expand...

show me one shred of evidence supporting creationism
 
Khushi said:
evolution is based on evidence, not faith
Click to expand...
Yes, the evidence that the Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy can be somehow broken to get it to work. Thats the faith aspect of evolution right there.
 
kimrari said:
yes it should be taught.

its funny how its ok to teach evolution, when BOTH EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM ARE UNPROVEN THEORIES.

no matter the argument, no one, can get past the fact that
Click to expand...


on that note, neither should be taught.

i believe only what science can lay down before me. neither can be proven.

i could say that lifeforms sprang from farts from other lifeforms which magically turned into the next big thing on the planet. it doesnt mean it should be taught.

catch what im saying "a greater being made us" vs "a beaver farted and a human popped out" vs "something clicked in the genetic structure and an altered version of the parent popped out" vs "I'VE GOT A HUGE COCK"

all is bullshit unless you can prove it.

eh.

i eventually stood up to a teacher trying to teach *theories*on shit like this and they were dumbfounded that a 12 yr old shut down everything they blurted out and brought up counterpoints then refused to shut up. eventually the bitch shut up and went to another subject. i was scolded. i went home happy. :|

i had to leave for the advanced program halfway through her class anyway so its not like she could have me held up at the principal's office for very long so i figured i would shove her bullshit that she actually seemed to believe back down her throat and then get out. which i did.

sparred on evolution and fossil fuels mainly.
 
Khushi said:
show me one shred of evidence supporting creationism
Click to expand...
Given the premise that God is outside all known laws of physics, since he was the one who established them, creationism does not break the fundamental Laws of the universe like Thermodynamics and Entropy.

Its not exactly evidence for it, but unlike evolution iot doesnt break fundamental laws of the universe.
 
While operating in the domain of empirical science, creation scientist function in exactly the same manner as evolution scientists, assuming that what they see happening today happened in the past and will happen in the same way in the future. Science is Empirical.
 
Evolution isn't a theory. It's fact.

Micro-evolution has been proven for years. Macro evolution is still a bit up in the air, but the evidence piling up is adding to it.

Also, creationism is based on faith, which by definition, cannot be scientifically proven.

How would you teach something with no scientific evidence in a science class?

Evolution as it is now has evidene.
 
its understandable that both newtonian and quantum physics are taught... since theres reason and evidence for the validity of both. neither are completely proven as with evolution, otherwise thered be a unified theory for physics. however both types of physics, and evolution have enough evidence to make them valid educational material.

creation on the other hand isnt even a theory, the closet word is hypothesis.
 
Holden C said:
Evolution isn't a theory. It's fact.

Micro-evolution has been proven for years. Macro evolution is still a bit up in the air, but the evidence piling up is adding to it.

Also, creationism is based on faith, which by definition, cannot be scientifically proven.

How would you teach something with no scientific evidence in a science class?

Evolution as it is now has evidene.
Click to expand...

Lol, show me one evolution scientist stating that.
 
Khushi said:
its understandable that both newtonian and quantum physics are taught... since theres reason and evidence for the validity of both. neither are completely proven as with evolution, otherwise thered be a unified theory for physics. however both types of physics, and evolution have enough evidence to make them valid educational material.

creation on the other hand isnt even a theory, the closet word is hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Creationism and Evolution is not a scientific theory.
 
DaNGr said:
While operating in the domain of empirical science, creation scientist function in exactly the same manner as evolution scientists, assuming that what they see happening today happened in the past and will happen in the same way in the future. Science is Empirical.
Click to expand...

Please define the "domain of empirical science". Your statement above has nothing to do with empirical science.

Empirical means to derive from experimentation or observation. Name one experiment or observation that points to creationist theory.
 
Holden C said:
Evolution isn't a theory. It's fact.

Micro-evolution has been proven for years. Macro evolution is still a bit up in the air, but the evidence piling up is adding to it.

Also, creationism is based on faith, which by definition, cannot be scientifically proven.

How would you teach something with no scientific evidence in a science class?

Evolution as it is now has evidene.
Click to expand...

theres proof of macro-evolution for single celled life in nature. ebola is an example. i've heard multi-cellular has been proven in labs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top