It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:43 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. Where as I worship a creator, you seem to worship science.

Faith is a belief in an idea that is unsupported, or contradicted, by evidence. Quoted from our friend wikipedia.

Evolutionists seem to put FAITH in science. That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Science deals with the search for proof and faith believes without proof.
No man has ever been able to prove or disprove the Bible. I choose to have faith in that Bible and to believe that we have a purpose here. Evolution insinuates we are an accident with no purpose and that when we pass on we cease to exist at all. Where is the logic in that ? Why would we exist with no purpose or intention? Evolution says I'm an accident and I refuse to believe I'm an accident.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by West Coast
Your post shows, Mr. McGee, that evolution is as much a theory as religion is.

Only insofar as they are both theories. One theory has a preponderance of evidence behind it which overwhelmingly supports the conclusions drawn. The other has no evidence at all. I could say that man evolved because my cat dreamed it one day and that theory would have as much evidence as religion.

Because science cannot answer them.

Again, i'd have respectfully disagree
. Music can't answer those questions either, nor can cookery or engine repair. It doesn't change the subject matter, it's not a scientific subject.

Why then do they exist at all? Why does moral consciousness exist at all? Why are humans the only animals on this planet, capable of looking up and admiring a beautiful starry night sky, wondering just how the hell we got here?

The questions exist because we asked them
. Science can't answer everything, it just can't. Human consciousness can be explained through the electronic interactions of neurons in your brain but that cold, factual answer can't capture emotions or the feeling you get when you look at the person you love.

And how do you know animals don't wonder about these things.

Which does nothing to answer how the Universe came into being.

A few hundred years ago we knew the earth was flat. 100 years ago we could never have dreamed of the microprocessor. We have working theories on the formation of the universe but it's not going to happen overnight. The LHC will give us more insight into this but it will take time before we can offer anything concrete. It's not like we can just make it up and say some dude magicked it into existence.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 06:01 PM
My grandson - now 15 - was brought up in a private Christian school. Not for religion but because the schools where he lives near the Mexican border have too many things to deal with besides education.

He thanks me for getting him out of there - - and refers to them as "mindless idiots" in subjects of history and science. He is studying science.

I personally believe there is a type of Creationism involving "intelligent energy consciousness" - - but that's not what we're talking about.

If my kid in public school was being taught about some mythical omnipotent man waving his hand - and poof human and earth appeared. I would be down there protesting faster then you can say ATS.

As far as Natural Selection - - there is scientific proof to back it up.

But even Darwin did not believe his Theory 100% that man evolved from apes.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Christian Voice
You are certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. Where as I worship a creator, you seem to worship science.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect your right to believe as you see fit. As I stated, faith is a personal thing and it is not my place to either judge anyone based on their beliefs or try to dissuade them from it. I do not, however, worship science. Science is simply a subject and the scientific method a way to do things which produces results.

Evolutionists seem to put FAITH in science. That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Science deals with the search for proof and faith believes without proof.

Most evolutionists don't put faith in science. They look at the evidence behind the hypothesis and judge it on it's merits.

Evolution insinuates we are an accident with no purpose and that when we pass on we cease to exist at all. Where is the logic in that ? Why would we exist with no purpose or intention? Evolution says I'm an accident and I refuse to believe I'm an accident.

Your logic is flawed in this case. If we are an accident with no purpose then the question 'Why would we exist with no purpose or intention?' is already answered and becomes moot. Your refusal to believe you were an accident does not take away from the fact that it might be the case.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by Annee

I have said that I feel religion has been poorly represented in past threads. I myself do not necessarily subscribe to the bible, but I do believe in a creator.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 07:13 PM
to all the people who believe religion should be taught in science class, well listen carefuly and say it out loud, Science class, say it again, Science class, do you hear it ? its science class not religious class, creationism isnt even a theory there isnt even any evidence, for all we know god might have been a bed time story, i am christian i go to church each sunday, but i still know that science class is a place for science to be taught like many other people have said , wouldnt you complain if they started teaching math class in a english class ? or a art class in a gym class ? it puzzled me how some people think also many questions are purely philosophical such as what is the meaning of life ?, just like do you like ice cream, there is no true answer the person can say no, yes or i like a specific flavor only etc, now about the evidence, there is NO evidence supporting creationism while if you look around you can see how animals have evolved, camels have humps in which they store water, etc

religion should not be at any point part of school, its not like you can get a job by reading the bible, its not like people will take you seriously when they ask why does the apple fall from the tree and you say "because god wills it"

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 07:19 PM
Well until scientists find how the universe came to being I think they should teach what ever the curriculum tells them to teach. I think they should give a balanced diet of creationism and evolution and let the child decide what is right and what is wrong. Like the argument says from both sides, prove or disprove, but until that time I will believe in a creator.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
Well until scientists find how the universe came to being I think they should teach what ever the curriculum tells them to teach. I think they should give a balanced diet of creationism and evolution and let the child decide what is right and what is wrong. Like the argument says from both sides, prove or disprove, but until that time I will believe in a creator.

Which Creationism story would that be?

As I stated - I believe in a type of Creationism. I believe in an "intelligent - energy - consciousness". Nothing exists but Thought. Everything is a Creation of/by thought.

How about that Creationism?

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Going to church does not make you a Christian. How can you claim Christianity and yet dismiss one of the principle beliefs of Christianity and that is That God Created Everything. Sounds a bit contradictory to me. I agree with you that science class is science class. If evolution is to be tought it should be tought as theory, and not fact. If it is tought as theory then other theories should be presented as well such as Creationism.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:08 PM
The big question.

What is a God?

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by vor78

Shall they also give the creationist stories of other religions fair treatment?

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:36 PM
reply to post by Christian Voice

Seperation of church and state. Wasn't that one of the main principles the United States was founded on?

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 08:40 PM
Hello all,
I usually never post, I'm more of just a reader and fan of this site. Anyway this subject is one I could not let pass up. My wife IS a high school biology teacher right here in the good 'ole midwest and let me tell you this is something I am completely appalled by. I am an engineer by trade and athiest, but my wife falls somewhere between scientist and a catholic and not only has she taught at a parochial school, but also a public school and what I have learned is that it is not what she wants to teach, not what the state mandates but rather what the school board and or parents want. Think of principals as a crappy CEO or manager that do whatever the parents or board want, even if the state mandates tests and demands that the students be tested on evolution type information. The "evangelical" movement is growing and what we have is teachers teaching what they want and getting away with it, they teach what they think, and the parents of the students at their local church think and so on. It IS rediculous because it is a science class but my wife has students that stand up in class and tell her she is stupid because there is no way men came from monkeys and so on. I see the whole religion vs science thing as a simple matter, faith vs fact. Anything we don't have any fact for = faith, so ther still is a lot of things we don't understand but creationists take it to a completely new level. Just when you thought anti-science people couldn't get any dumber, they invent creationism. A farce, an insult to both science and religion, and basically the stupidest thing you have ever heard of. Creationists are just people that can't accept either one and must not have any common sense at all. We live in a new time everyone and I hope that all you parents out there pay attention to what your kids are being taught. Public education is not just a free babysitter, It is up to you to teach your kids waht you believe and give them the choice to choose what is best for them, just don't let them fall into the creationism mess because it an insult to everything the human race is, I hope I didn't offend anyone, this has always been a place where most people can express their opinions so take mine for what it's worth....supergenius

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Religion has no place in a science lesson.

I agree, but forms of creationism can be taught from a scientific point of view.

Holographic or fractal universe theories have nothing to do with religion, aside from the fact that ancient cultures and religions seemed to have known about it. Unfortunately, the many problems created from religions tend to get in the way and instead of logical people arguing for creationism, we have bible thumpers pointing to scripture as their "proof". This just makes the whole idea look bad when it really isn't.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link if we want to teach a balanced diet of creationism and evolution then I suggest we teach this creation story:

In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. Along with the void existed Niflheim the land of fog and ice in the north and Muspelheim the land of fire in the south. In Niflheim was a spring called Hvergelmir from which the Elivagar (eleven rivers - Svol, Gunnthra, Fiorm, Fimbulthul, Slidr, Hrid, Sylg, Ylg, Vid, Leiptr, and Gioll) flowed. The Elivargar froze layer upon layer until it filled in the northerly portion of the gap. Concurrently the southern portion was being filled by sparks and molten material from Muspelheim. The mix of fire and ice caused part of the Elivagar to melt forming the figures Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. The cow's milk was Ymir's food. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male. While Ymir was busy procreating Audhumla was busy eating. Her nourishment came from licking the salty ice. Her incessant licking formed the god Buri. He had a son named Bor who was the father of Odin, Vili, and Ve. For some reason the sons of Bor decided to kill poor Ymir. His blood caused a flood which killed all of the frost giants except for two, Bergelmir and his wife, who escaped the deluge in their boat. Odin, Vili, and Ve put Ymir's corpse into the middle of ginnungagap and created the earth and sky from it. They also created the stars, sun, and moon from sparks coming out of Muspelheim. Finally, the brothers happened upon two logs lying on the beach and created the first two humans Ask [Ash] and Embla [vine] from them.

Ohh, and we can hand out viking horned helmets too.

If the separation of Church and State means anything at all then Creationism does not belong in the public school system. If parents decided their children need to know creationism, they must either teach it themselves or send the children to SUNDAY SCHOOL!

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 10:20 PM
Look - Christians can not even agree on what a Christian is.

You honestly believe they would accept a "generic" science based Creationism theory?

Not gonna happen.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 10:26 PM
I have been examining the theory of evolution in great depth for a lot time. Most of you have heard that there are a lot of unexplainable or even inconsistent parts in it. Let me list some of them:
order from disorder
information from randomness
complex DNA and RNA by chance?
life's complexity
where are the transitional fossils?
could an intermediate even survive?
reproduction without reproduction?
plants without photosynthesis?
explain metamorphosis!

So there are A LOT of issues the theory of evolution can't explain currently. Actually it is the same with the Creationism/Intelligent Design. They have some scientific bases like the concept of "Irreducible complexity". Our Children should be aware of these things.

Both theories are used by non-scientific circles, both political and religious. Probably you have heard about the so-called Social Darwinism which is one of the bases of the Nazi and the Communist teachings. I think it is still thought in different forms in the Communist countries, which simply helps to brainwash the citizens more thoroughly.

So, my oppinion is that there isn't any complete scientific explanation of how life came into existence and this should be made clear to the students.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:21 PM
I think one of the problems in these arguements is the problem of arrogance. I think many people often assume that we are the pinnacle, and that we know most of what it is possible to learn, so if it exists outside our paradigm it must be the work of "god". So, creationists look at incomplete theories, and because it may not have been developed to its conclusion yet, they say it is false, and proclaim "god" the only answer. It is obvious that darwinism is largely correct. Animals mate with animals, and evolve, and change to adapt. The only place it may be lacking is with the missing link, and that does not mean its flawed, it only means that A) our information is incomplete, or B) we lack yet the intelligence to comprehend the answer. The same applies to many of einstein's theories, incomplete as yet due to lack of available info at that time, but you dont see people throwing away his total theories due to understandable holes. I am pretty sure science can and will answer most of our questions in time, given that we grow in capacity to understand the universe, and are given more evidence through further research.
As far as how life starts, it has been shown that when several trace elements come into contact in a vacuum, that simple amino acids start to form which indicates to me that perhaps "life" is another natural form of matter, just like solid, liquid, gas. Indeed, if everything is created from energy (protons and electrons/which are just names for vibrations) and energy is perhaps analogous with consciousness, then perhaps my idea that life is another expression of matter is not necessarily so flawed. And i still am aggrieved to see religious fundamentalists unable to grasp gods ability to use whatever tools he likes to create us, including that of evolution. It seems they have a limited belief of gods abilities when seen in that light, and it further shows their egocentrism in thinking that other life on our planet is "beneath" us, and refusing to believe that they could have come from monkeys...which the last time i checked dont rape rob or murder on a scale even remotely resembling that of us "noble" humans. It is just such beliefs which allow them also to hold other humans in contempt.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:27 PM
At any rate, i have yet to see one of these religious folk address the suggestion that Science, which is the exploration of the world and its natural laws through repeatable and quantifiable evidence and testing, is what should be taught in science class, and dogma should be reserved for dogma class. And the reason for this is that most of these religious zealots would have religion taught in ALL classes. They would have "history" be the history of christ, they would have "reading and english" be the reading and composition of religion, they would have "Phys ed" be the phys ed of christ, and they would have "math" be restricted to the multiplication of fishes and loaves.

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:05 AM
Science, in vain, has continuously tried to substantiate the theory of Evolution and the big bang theory.

Why are they still called theories and not laws? Because they have yet to be proven, only conjectured. Yet, we are taught in schools that they are, more or less, proven as fact.

So what makes these assumptions any different then Creationism? one is labeled "secular" and the other religious.

In short, evolution is the athiest answer to creationism. One having rose in popularity about 150ish years ago, whereas the other was believed since the written record.

To try to entail that evolution is scientifically sound is neglecting to mention that it's still a THEORY, and therefore, not scientific at all.

I like to add: With all beliefs, it requires at looking at both sides. You're selling yourself short if you choose to remain ignorant.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Shortness]

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in