So many parts of the USA are wanting to teach creationism, and here in the UK, schools have considered it seriously. Now i'm not an atheist, i'm a believer in evolution but i think you can believe whatever you wish. However there is a vital flaw in creationism.

There are literally thousands of creation myths, why exactly should we just go with the biblical approach? Creationism often uses the bible as it's resource, it's backup text that is why it should not be used. To use a single book like that goes against the equality of religions and means you're actively favouring a religious idea. If you teach creationism then you have to teach the other myths, from the norse, to the roman, to the greek to the ancient sumarian legends.

So what about ID (Intelligent Design). Well the main basis of ID is irreducible complexity. However i have been through the research and havn't found much evidence of this. They quote things like the eye, but we know of species with simpler eyes, it's very possible to have evolved from there. They talk about the blood clotting cascade, and yet we've identified species with fewer of the clotting factors needed, it's possible we evolved from there.

I'm tired of this avoidance of the science, creationism and ID will hold back pupils who believe it in mainstream scientific research in our modern age. I think it could be considered a form of abuse to teach them something that mainstream science sees as incorrect and which will hinder their progress and damage any of their long term research.

If you want to learn creationism, if you want to believe in ID, then please teach your children yourself. Oh and don't say we should teach both because anyone teaching both will favour one or the other, they will not be presented equally. That's a way of sneaking in religious teachers in schools, Keep ID and creationism in church, do not bring it into the school unless it's a privately funded school.

I'm usually so tolerant, i am agnostic, i accept fully that you should have the right to believe in whatever you wish, but i'm tired of this rubbish being brought into mainstream education. I've got no bias when i look at this issue, as an agnostic i can look at the evidence from both sides and make the logical choice and i'm afraid creationism has no legs to stand on, ID has some legs but no convincing evidence. The only reason i say Id has legs is because i accept the possibility of a god as i'm agnostic. However you have no good research to back up your claims.

I can't remember where i heard the quote but it's one i like, i'll try and remember it roughly here.

"God might have created the universe and setup the rules, but i don't think god can break the rules.

Evolution is the way i think god would do it, god would set up a system that takes care of itself rather than designing everything.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

thanks for sharing your oppinion.

and sence we are using oppinion as facts now, let me add some of my facts to this conversation. evolutoin has no leg to stand on. i think its unfair to teach a largely flawed "science" in schools. there are too many holes and what if's in evolution for it to be called a science, but that fact could be considered my oppinion as well. wow this is the debate that goes on and on my friend.

the teaching of evolution will hold back the pupils who wish to believe in "ID".

teaching Norse and Roman myths, that is a sad atempt at a joke well i hope it was a joke. those religions have been dead for centuries. they are not even relivent to anything.


[edit on 15amu22007 by DaleGribble]

Hate to tell you, but evolution is fact. The controversy in the scientific community is its SCALE, not whether it happens or not.
One theory says it happens quickly, every now and then, while another says it happens slowly and constantly over time. And don't give me any of that "evolution is a theory" crap, as basically everything in science is theory. And creationism and ID are classed as mythology at best, and honestly, I'd rather have a theory taught to my children as fact than a myth.

Originally posted by DaleGribble

teaching Norse and Roman myths, that is a sad atempt at a joke well i hope it was a joke. those religions have been dead for centuries. they are not even relivent to anything.

Them being dead doesn't mean their creatin myths are incorrect now does it. If however you want to argue the point then lets use buddhism, hinduism, druidism, wicca, islam etc etc. All of these have creation myths, if you want to teach one you have to teach the other.

Well, I would like to have had creation at school instead of evolution. At least it would make some sense and is not full of impossiblities. They should keep their own evolution beliefs with themselves and not try to feed them to us as fact, because that's not what it is, it's not even the truth. Even though neither of them can be proven as facts, creation is the most possible way supporting the scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Hate to tell you, but evolution is fact. The controversy in the scientific community is its SCALE, not whether it happens or not.
One theory says it happens quickly, every now and then, while another says it happens slowly and constantly over time. And don't give me any of that "evolution is a theory" crap, as basically everything in science is theory. And creationism and ID are classed as mythology at best, and honestly, I'd rather have a theory taught to my children as fact than a myth.

Hate to tell you, but evolution is not a fact. Facts are things that can be proven true through observation and scientific proof, not things that are made up and generally accepted by people who don't accept creation. They want to decide themselves how world started and life evolved with theories, which they put under the protection of some scientific facts, while others are still contradicting it. Science contains facts, not theories, therefore evolution should be left off of it as it is full of contradictions against the facts of modern science. We have same facts, but the interpretations of how they came to be are different. While evolutionists have to base their faith on their guesses, decisions and scientific impossiblities, creationists have a clear vision that supports the facts of science. We can prove that we can lose genetical information and move it to anothers, but it's never proven to work the other way around, ever, therefore you have to believe in it. The only things that evolve are the theories.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Ferdane]

Ferdane,

are you a biologist or examiner?

What kind of job you have?

Originally posted by azblack
When you look at today's religion's and keep fairnees to all which are worshiped, they all believe in a One God system (if you will). So in essence, I mean to say,you could teach there's a possibility one God of no specific denomination as a source of creationism, all religions believe that you alienate no-one.How about the history of religion in correlation with other creationism theories (Big Bang, A.I.) as a seperate class from science. This debate, at it's core, influences the debate against evolution, because illogical thinkers group creationism and evolution together. They are seperate, one is a theory unproven as of late, evolution is simply observing natural occurances and changes in species over the course of even a lifetime.

Sorry but no, there are many religions which worship many gods and don't have a head god. Hinduism is an example, so no i can't agree with the rest of what you said as it's based on a single god ideal.

The part i can agree with is the idea that evolution and creationism are different and seperate. Creationism is based on the bible, however ID isn't. ID i can accept could be linked to evolution, what i mean by this is that god could have created evolution and then let it do it's thing from there. I accept that as a possibility, however it would still make evolution correct in how the species came about.

Originally posted by J.Smit

Marvellous. How many times did you say evolution was tested and found to be correct? The test for a THEORY to be acceptable, not even yet accepted, is a minimum 95% success rate when tested.

How many times did you say you guys tested evolution?

To test evolution to it's full would take maybe 10,000 years as that's the sort of time scale we're dealing with. Happily we have fossils, yay! These little marvels, having survived so much hardship prove evolutionary change. They show families, linked ancestors and a tree we can map out. That is proof, we have also made predictions using evolution. Years back we said there would be a fossil out there that showed a transition from water to land, and we found it. A prediction based on an established theory, then being found to be true, is the cornerstone of science.

Originally posted by J.Smit
And I am not talking about minor evolution/constant mutation, which makes changes within the species. I want to know how many times did you make men out of monkeys.

(although there are many monkeys made out of men...)

why aren't you talking about minor evolution? That is essential to macro evolution. Small changes over the years build to big changes, like the first brick of a house on it's own does not make the house, it's only when all the little bits are put together you have the full thing, in this case a new species.

Firstly modern man came from the missing link, that elusive fossil we havn't laid our hands on yet. Secondly, to create men from monkeys would mean we need a few hundred thousand years of selective mutation along the lines our ancestors went through. Creating that would be pretty much impossible in a lab enviroment, it however doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

We have fossils, leading from one ancestor to the other, that proves evolution.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Ferdane,

are you a biologist or examiner?

What kind of job you have?

Heh, biology isn't exactly what I'm that much interested of but I like to read random this and that about our world but not really concentrate in a small area, because that makes you not see everything, often resulting you not taking everything in consideration.

I'm a student.. Business Information Technology.

No job. =[

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Sorry but no, there are many religions which worship many gods and don't have a head god. Hinduism is an example, so no i can't agree with the rest of what you said as it's based on a single god ideal.

The part i can agree with is the idea that evolution and creationism are different and seperate. Creationism is based on the bible, however ID isn't. ID i can accept could be linked to evolution, what i mean by this is that god could have created evolution and then let it do it's thing from there. I accept that as a possibility, however it would still make evolution correct in how the species came about.

Oops I forgot about Hinduism, I don't know how, but whatever you're still missing my point. That's any type of theory of the universe's original creating influence clouds the theory of evolution, it's origination is everyday observances, or what people have started calling macro-evolution for some reason.

Creation should be a seperate class which includes all religion beliefs, the big bang, Universal expansion....whatever. Also these scientifically deduced theories could be omitted or stressed as theory. As long as it's done right, creationism, and morals more importantly,could be taught fairly and would be a needed addition to any town overrun with crime.

I know certain religious sects would try to push their luck, but that's life!
My point to the one God part of the converstation was really to point out most instances the religious fanatics get up in arms about, in reality are such small differences. A logical view will even negate all creation arguements, as they are all theories and no one has proven anything, really, just narrowed down the possibilities. Is it really worth it to demean people who have different views based merely from possibilities.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by azblack]

Originally posted by Ferdane
Well, I would like to have had creation at school instead of evolution. At least it would make some sense and is not full of impossiblities. They should keep their own evolution beliefs with themselves and not try to feed them to us as fact, because that's not what it is, it's not even the truth. Even though neither of them can be proven as facts, creation is the most possible way supporting the scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Hate to tell you, but evolution is fact. The controversy in the scientific community is its SCALE, not whether it happens or not.
One theory says it happens quickly, every now and then, while another says it happens slowly and constantly over time. And don't give me any of that "evolution is a theory" crap, as basically everything in science is theory. And creationism and ID are classed as mythology at best, and honestly, I'd rather have a theory taught to my children as fact than a myth.

Hate to tell you, but evolution is not a fact. Facts are things that can be proven true through observation and scientific proof, not things that are made up and generally accepted by people who don't accept creation. They want to decide themselves how world started and life evolved with theories, which they put under the protection of some scientific facts, while others are still contradicting it. Science contains facts, not theories, therefore evolution should be left off of it as it is full of contradictions against the facts of modern science. We have same facts, but the interpretations of how they came to be are different. While evolutionists have to base their faith on their guesses, decisions and scientific impossiblities, creationists have a clear vision that supports the facts of science. We can prove that we can lose genetical information and move it to anothers, but it's never proven to work the other way around, ever, therefore you have to believe in it. The only things that evolve are the theories.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Ferdane]

If evolution is needs to be put through such stringent testing, I would like to know if creationism has gone through the same set of tests. I would also like to read these results. I would like to know the facts that support creationism. There is absolutely no way to prove that some being sprinkled pixie dust on the earth and every being was created. Seriously, link me some proof that can be tested and the results replicated, that creationism works. I would love to see this PROOF that God exists.

Man did not come from monkeys.

We share certain common ancestors...but diverged on our paths.

Look at your fingernails. What purpose do they serve?
Look at an animals claws. Not too hard to see where nails came from.

Many humans are born with vestigal tails (cut off in the hospital), and many whales have vestigal leg bones (from when they crawled back in the water)...

Fossil records clearly illustrate the process.

That all said, if they did teach creationism in school, then they'd likely turn a lot of people off of religion, due to some of the ridiculous assertions. If the church wants to preserve membership, they should do all they can to downplay creationism, and certainly not advocate it being shown in school (I know I'd find it difficult to keep a straight face in such a class)....

Yep, I was that same kid asked to go play on the playground in Sunday School, hehe... (Baptist upbringing).

"Who made God?"
"What was there before Creation?"
"How can a perfect being make imperfect creatures? Wouldn't he no longer be "perfect"?
"Why do WE have to suffer for one idiot's disobedience to God?"
"If Noah had two of each animal on the Ark, what did he do to feed the carnivores, for all of those days?" Wouldn't the "food" animals then go extinct?

Yep, I totally got kicked out, hehe....