Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Fascinating how this keeps becoming a topic to bash creationists.
Evolution is a theory, and touted as nearly factual, but it is based on faulty assumptions. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism.
Fact: there is no scientific evidence that any information can be added to DNA. This alone would destroy evolution.
Fact: the human genome has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. In order for a human to evolve from primordial soup, the human genome would need more than one successful addition to the DNA each year, including replication. This is factually impossible.
Sorry folks, but you are going to have to come up with some other fantasy than evolution. Scientific fact says it is impossible.
But then, it was never about science, was it? It was about not being accountable to God.

Let's take a look at creationism:

Proving creationism:
1. Creationism predicts that all life was made fully formed, with complete and complex information stored in the DNA of each lifeform. There has not been any record of information being added to DNA, therefore organisms were made with their existing information.
2. Creationism predicts that man was created suddenly. DNA proves this to be correct, as there has not been enough time to mutate DNA to make humans. The human DNA has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. You would have to have two successful mutations per year, every year, since life began on Earth, to create humans.
3. Creationism predicts that there would be helium in rocks. Helium loss in rocks shows the Earth is in the neighborhood of 7000 years old. Any older, and there would not be any helium in rocks.
4. Creationism predicts that there would be soft tissue in dinosaur bones. There is. Soft tissue cannot exist past about 4000 years.
5. Creationism predicts that carbon 14 will be present in fossils, and that it will show that fossils do not date older than about 7000 years, adjusting for atmospheric changes following a major flood. It does, as all fossils on Earth contain Carbon 14, and none test older than an adjusted date of about 7000 years.
6. Creationism predicts that polonium halos would exist in granite if the Earth was made in one day. Scientific evidence concerning polonium halos in granite show that the halos could only form if the granite cooled in just a few minutes. www.halos.com
7. Creationism predicts that man and dinosaurs coexisted, being made within a few days of each other. Dinosaurs and man show intermixed footprints in stone at the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas and other sites on Earth.
8. Creationism predicts that there was nothing, and it was made into the Universe within 6 days. Using Einstein's E=mc^2 formula, we find that the time for the stretching forth of the Universe from Earth to 13.5 billion light years away took 20.12 hours at the speed of light times the speed of light. After this expansion began to slow below the mc^2, it transformed from light (E) into mass (m), with light stretched out in the space-time continuum between all objects.
9. Creationism predicts that the creation spread out from a centerpoint, Earth, to the rest of the Universe. Hubble confirmed that this was one of two possibilities but argued that he could not accept a favored position for Earth and chose the second possibility. However, since Hubble, we have discovered that quantized red shift puts Earth at the center of the Universe within 100 light years (the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across), which would allow for motion in the Milky Way galaxy to move our position from exact center to slightly off center.
10. Creationism predicts that red shift will show that the Universe was spread out at speeds increasing with distance. Red shift confirms that the Universe was indeed spread out at speeds increasing with distance from Earth.
11. Creationism predicts that this Universe is a special creation by God for man to inhabit Earth. Due to recent studies of the fine-tuning of the Universe, scientists now know that the chance of this Universe existing and being suitable for life for man is 1x10^140,000. Scientists explain this by stating that the infinite Universe is surrounded by more infinite universes and that we were lucky to be in ours. This scientific counterpoint can never be proven to eliminate the facts proven that support creationism.

Only creationism predicts these true results. And you wanted to kick it out of the classroom. Is that wise?

Creationism does not need to present itself as science. Science proves it. There can be no other explanation, other than the multiverse, which cannot be proven under any scientific means ever. Therefore, you want to prove multiverse, we want to prove God. We know there is at least one Universe. You do not know nor will you ever know that there is more than one Universe.
The choice facing you is: believe in a loving God who cares for you and has heaven for you after this life, or believe in a fantasy produced by science to an end that is unable to be proven or resolved. It is illogical to resort to the fantasy of a multiverse. It is illogical to assume that nothing creates everything. Ultimately, even with the theory of the multiverse, you come to the same brick wall: where did the first Universe in the Multiverse come from? You would ask where did God come from.

In order to create something as big as the Universe, you must be more powerful and bigger.
In order to create time and space, you must be outside time and space.
In order to create something from nothing, you must be outside nothing.
In order to create something that has a beginning, you must not have a beginning.

God is omnipotent, eternal, immaterial, without location in time and space. Wouldn't you agree that those are godly attributes?
So do creationists.

So, if you were blindfolded and were sent into the Multiverse to find one special marked electron, you, a non-creationist, believe that you have a chance of finding it on the first pick. You have a lot more faith, my friend, than any creationist.

I wonder if any of the "there is no scientific evidence" crowd will actually consider the implications of what you posted?

I might also point out (before someone else does) that these evidences are not unequivocal. They may at any time be proved false. Science is like that, no scientific evidence is ever entirely beyond question.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

No more so than recalling a toy because it contains harmful amounts of a manufacturing chemical.

Apologies, but I am unsure which post this was in reply to?

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: Ghost147

Looking back at my original post, I wished I would have worded my position differently. Whatever the subject matter, differing views/opinions/facts should be presented as a learning experience. When speaking of Pythagoras, would one not include the medieval Christians notion of the myth of the flat earth? It is my opinion that full understanding of any subject should include diverse input, to get a better understanding of the whole.

I'm afraid I still don't agree with you. What classes teach are the facts. Opinions and other options are excluded because their not trying to teach every single notion, which would be a massive waste of time. You can't possibly say that teaching that the Earth revolves around the sun, whilst also teaching that some people believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, could possibly be beneficial. Not only that, but the vast amount of opinions have been proven false, over and over again, including Creationism. So why would we ever include it in a view of the facts, when we already know it's a false concept?

As KrazyShot likes to continue to ask, Can you show a unified view of Creationism in which a person could use in the discussion?

originally posted by: glend
Science and religion have the same goal and that is to find truth,

That is actually not correct. Science has nothing to do with the truth. It is merely a tool in which we use to attempt to describe natural phenomena. Science deals with probability.

originally posted by: glend
Science might be considered more left-brained whilst religion right-brained. I have no problem seeing classes separated but feel that if both hemisphere's aren't joined we will fail to find the ultimate truth. So perhaps there should be an optional third class to try amalgamate the truth from both.

Debate club would work find for this matter, in my opinion.

originally posted by: chr0naut
You sound quite Creationist, referring to the "Theory of Evolution".

I'm not allowed to call the theory of evolution by calling it the theory of evolution? You make no sense.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is a UK law banning the teaching of Creation as science, it applies even in a Religious Education class. The law made specific reference to the teaching of evolution, the implication being that those who framed the law saw evolution and creation as being in opposition to each other. The law was favourable to the teaching of evolution. Would that not qualify as evolutionists dictating the way someone else should act?

No, it has nothing to do with "evolutionists" dictating anything, it is simply logical not to include a faith-based concept which has yet to prove anything or provide any evidence as a scientific alternative to a theory that is one of the most evidence-backed theories in all Scientific fields.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I wonder if any of the "there is no scientific evidence" crowd will actually consider the implications of what you posted?

Nope, because all those points have been debunked over and over again. Perhaps if he were to provide new arguments instead of recycled ones, we would care to listen.

Very interesting, I wasn't aware that it was called creationism to believe that God works through evolution. This is the closest to my belief. I never realized that there were different types of creationists.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo

At the end of Epperson v Arkansas, the SC suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.

Actually, it suggests no such thing. Had that been the case, the Court would have ruled very differently 19 years later in Edwards v. Aguillard which ruled teaching the two side by side unconstitutional. It says as much in every article or review I've ever read regarding Epperson v. Arkansas.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Are you sure about that? Can you tell me the difference between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law?

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

For the record, a Scientific Law, just like a Scientific Theory can be proven wrong. The article neither proves, nor even demonstrates, any such thing you attempt to allude to.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

Here, since this seems to be your main sticking point, a Scientific Theory, in most simplistic terms, describes the HOW and WHY of something. A Scientific Law on the other hand explains the predictability of a phenomena. For example, Newton's 'Law of Gravity' predicts the behavior of a dropped object but not the HOW or WHY those actions occur.

There is no absolute proof in science. The basic point of the scientific method is to attempt to falsify data to see what will withstand scrutiny, not to prove anything.

(humansarefree.com/2013/12/9/-scientific-facts-prove-theory-of.-html)

Next time you use a source that you are quote mining, you may want to change your "challenges" into your own words because just copy and pasting from the source without giving credit is called plagiarism. From this source-

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

Does any of that look familiar from your post?

The intellectual dishonesty displayed here is very telling and demonstrates an alarming lack of due diligence on your behalf. Please, in the future, properly quote your sources instead of plagiarizing them because people DO check citations.

David Grey: "Free the facts"

Is 100% wrong as of slide #5 regarding the linear "facts to laws" insistence. Perhaps try some science based sources instead of just looking for anti-science denialism.

Debate.org: Has evolution been scientifically proven?

the majority of naysayers seem to rely on the strawman of "It's only a theory" indicating they know little about science period let alone Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. There isn't an iota of dissenting proof. Only opinions on both sides of the argument. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is in fact, the most well researched, sourced, tested and verified theory in the history of science.

These articles offer a different viewpoint, adding fuel to the debate.

Different viewpoints? Sure. Fuel to the debate? Not at all.

originally posted by: darkbake
Very interesting, I wasn't aware that it was called creationism to believe that God works through evolution. This is the closest to my belief. I never realized that there were different types of creationists.

I'm not so certain the whole God works through evolution bit to be creationism. Unless creationism simply is defined as god producing life. There still is young earth and old earth creationism, and that's only in the Christian religion. There are thousands of other types of creation stories and theories (Thursdayism for example)

originally posted by: randyvs
in accordance to the protocols of science?

Right Beer ? That's the question you should ask if you were honest?

Actually I'm just interested in what evidence you personally feel exists for Biblical creationism, that's outside the Bible. I'm trying to figure out if a Biblical creationist model exists that attempts to stand on its own merits as opposed to attacking other well established theories (evolution). But there isn't one, is there?

There is no reason to assume a God had anything to do with everything or anything. Regardless whether or not this or that scientific theory remains valid. In other words, if the impossible task of disproving evolution was accomplished, it would do nothing to suddenly support Biblical creationism.

The level of evidence required by biblical creationists to validate their beliefs could be applied to any creation mythology and equally prove it to be true and accurate.

What it again comes down to is evidence.

Biblical creationism falls short, every time. There is nothing scientific about it whatsoever.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: chr0naut
You sound quite Creationist, referring to the "Theory of Evolution".

I'm not allowed to call the theory of evolution by calling it the theory of evolution? You make no sense.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is a UK law banning the teaching of Creation as science, it applies even in a Religious Education class. The law made specific reference to the teaching of evolution, the implication being that those who framed the law saw evolution and creation as being in opposition to each other. The law was favourable to the teaching of evolution. Would that not qualify as evolutionists dictating the way someone else should act?

No, it has nothing to do with "evolutionists" dictating anything, it is simply logical not to include a faith-based concept which has yet to prove anything or provide any evidence as a scientific alternative to a theory that is one of the most evidence-backed theories in all Scientific fields.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I wonder if any of the "there is no scientific evidence" crowd will actually consider the implications of what you posted?

Nope, because all those points have been debunked over and over again. Perhaps if he were to provide new arguments instead of recycled ones, we would care to listen.

I was, of course, being sarcastic in referring to you as a Creationist.

That name-calling has been prevalent in many posts on ATS. It is not a valid argument and contributes nothing to the debate.

Carry on teaching the science that was created by intelligent beings/ entity. But children should be tought to explore beyond what they see because to exist cant be a freak accident and even if it was what created the accident.

Our reality behaves like software with defined parameters, and this is why the possibility of it being created by some form of intelligence is not out of the question for me. Could I tell you who, why, how? No. I don't pretend to know, and consider all religious explanations to be fairy tales. For this reason I agree with OP that there is nothing worthy of going in textbooks other than, based on my initial statement maybe one sentence mentioning only for the sake of fastidiousness, that "Some people contend that the universe was created."

Conversely, in that respect, it wouldn't hurt the scientific community to say "We don't know" every once in awhile when it's warranted. The theory of evolution is evolved, mostly agreed upon and well-documented, but in my opinion is by no means an entirely painted picture. There will be more revelations to come for sure, and likely a retraction or two.

originally posted by: reptildibz
Carry on teaching the science that was created by intelligent beings/ entity. But children should be tought to explore beyond what they see because to exist cant be a freak accident and even if it was what created the accident.

Are you suggesting we teach the children ancient fables written by ignorant superstitious mystics trying to explain away things they had no clue of knowing? Things that we know today to be incorrect? Or are you suggesting physics? No one has ever seen quarks, gluons, electrons and neutrinos, at least not directly. And conversely they will learn there are no accidents in physics of the Universe.
Anyone has the right to teach thier kids any kind of story they choose, it happens everyday in churches, parochial schools and homeschools. But you don't have the right to tell other peoples kids your creation story is any more valid than the next guys creation story. Would you want a satanic group to come in the science class give their version of creation?.. Why not? It's just a valid as any other story.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Hopefully I think I may have caught a glimpse of why we
can't understand or for that matter, even stand each other.

It's right here.

if the impossible task of disproving evolution was accomplished, it would do nothing to suddenly support Biblical creationism.

In my mind the one that makes the most explanatory sense
from how life began to the present. Wins! So to only explain the
mechanics of what was already there? And omit any explaination
for animation. Doesn't cut it. It just doesn't.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: chr0naut
You sound quite Creationist, referring to the "Theory of Evolution".

I'm not allowed to call the theory of evolution by calling it the theory of evolution? You make no sense.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is a UK law banning the teaching of Creation as science, it applies even in a Religious Education class. The law made specific reference to the teaching of evolution, the implication being that those who framed the law saw evolution and creation as being in opposition to each other. The law was favourable to the teaching of evolution. Would that not qualify as evolutionists dictating the way someone else should act?

No, it has nothing to do with "evolutionists" dictating anything, it is simply logical not to include a faith-based concept which has yet to prove anything or provide any evidence as a scientific alternative to a theory that is one of the most evidence-backed theories in all Scientific fields.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I wonder if any of the "there is no scientific evidence" crowd will actually consider the implications of what you posted?

Nope, because all those points have been debunked over and over again. Perhaps if he were to provide new arguments instead of recycled ones, we would care to listen.

I was, of course, being sarcastic in referring to you as a Creationist.

That name-calling has been prevalent in many posts on ATS. It is not a valid argument and contributes nothing to the debate.

Honestly, I have no idea what point you were trying to make, or what you are currently trying to make in this post? Are you saying you were name calling, or I was? And I don't understand what you meant by "You sound quite Creationist, referring to the "Theory of Evolution""

All ancient writing depicts a creator of some sort. Can u argue with that or is it just made up writing. Ur gunna discount historical discoveries made using science like dead sea scrolls. Any sumerian scripture heiroglyphics etc and say it doesnt warrent being discussed in school. Sound like an easy way out of what science know is true but cant explain. Ur not in control and their will always be the unexplainable but lets include it to discussion not ignore what created the very subject he/she/it put here for us all to advance.

originally posted by: reptildibz
Carry on teaching the science that was created by intelligent beings/ entity. But children should be tought to explore beyond what they see because to exist cant be a freak accident and even if it was what created the accident.

Why can't it be completely coincidental? What is so horrible about life just accidentally coming into form?

originally posted by: humanityrising
Our reality behaves like software with defined parameters, and this is why the possibility of it being created by some form of intelligence is not out of the question for me. Could I tell you who, why, how? No. I don't pretend to know, and consider all religious explanations to be fairy tales. For this reason I agree with OP that there is nothing worthy of going in textbooks other than, based on my initial statement maybe one sentence mentioning only for the sake of fastidiousness, that "Some people contend that the universe was created."

You are absolutely correct. There is nothing to disprove the possibility that a god exists and had any sort of hand in the creation of life or the universe. However, there is also nothing to suggest it did happen that way. What we do see is natural processes.

originally posted by: humanityrising
Conversely, in that respect, it wouldn't hurt the scientific community to say "We don't know" every once in awhile when it's warranted. The theory of evolution is evolved, mostly agreed upon and well-documented, but in my opinion is by no means an entirely painted picture. There will be more revelations to come for sure, and likely a retraction or two.

It would be extremely irresponsible for any scientist to claim they, or their field of study, have absolute knowledge. To my knowledge, there isn't any modern scientist that claims this (and if they did, I would bet they are an extremely disrespected individual).

Science isn't about knowing things definitively. It is simply a tool in which we use to describe naturally occurring phenomenon to our best efforts. Heck, to be considered "scientific" in the first place the information HAS TO BE falsifiable.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
In my mind the one that makes the most explanatory sense
from how life began to the present. Wins! So to only explain the
mechanics of what was already there? And omit any explaination
for animation. Doesn't cut it. It just doesn't.

The only issue "we" are having is that you can't understand that Evolution, and the people who accept it, aren't ever stating that life began due to evolution. You are absolutely correct, Evolution occurs once life already exists. We have other theories, such as Abiogenesis that tackle the actual start-up of life on this planet. All of which have more evidence than Creation, considering creation has absolutely none.

It wasn't the people who discovered and described evolution that made this whole "Evolution vs Creation" debate. It was the Creationists who took offense to this new-found knowledge and started up the pitchforks and torches.

a reply to: reptildibz

Certainly you can't be accused of any agenda with that.

originally posted by: reptildibz
All ancient writing depicts a creator of some sort. Can u argue with that or is it just made up writing. Ur gunna discount historical discoveries made using science like dead sea scrolls. Any sumerian scripture heiroglyphics etc and say it doesnt warrent being discussed in school. Sound like an easy way out of what science know is true but cant explain. Ur not in control and their will always be the unexplainable but lets include it to discussion not ignore what created the very subject he/she/it put here for us all to advance.

You have an extremely obscure view of what science is and what scientists are attempting to do. All that is proven within the history of Humanity and their ever-creative views on religion and theology is that Humanity is both superstitious, and in need of explaining things around them at an intrinsic level.

Just because something is old, does not make it correct.

Just because a lot of people believe in it, does not make it correct.

Notice how 99% of religions that have existed do not still exist? It's because no one can agree on anything. Even some religions don't require a god. So your concept is flawed at it's core. Sorry, but this is not how the world and reality work.

a reply to: Ghost147

You know what smart guy fabricator?
Show me evolutions eureka moment?

All it ever was and ever has been, is confirmation bias.

From the G-D get go pal.

originally posted by: randyvs
Hopefully I think I may have caught a glimpse of why we
can't understand or for that matter, even stand each other.

I for one feel that I do understand you, or at least where you're coming from. Generally speaking at least, if nothing more. And I actually can stand you, believe it or not! Sure we may disagree on the things we've talked about in this or that thread, but you've never given me cause to dislike you.