It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Creationism in school

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I have to write a 10 page paper in my govornment class about weather or not creationism should be taught in public schools. I belive that it should not, but i want to be sure that i cover all the important points. any ideas?




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
1. "It's just a theory." The same can be said for The Theory of Gravity and Germ Theory. A scientific theory is an explanation for observable evidence. That's why Creationism and Intelligent Design can't be theories, as they have no evidence.

2. "Teach the controversy." There is none. Even the most conservative estimates say there are 4x as many historians who reject the Holocaust than legit Biologists who believe in literal creation.

3. Let the students decide/equal time/etc. Again, where do we stop at? Should Holocaust deniers be allowed to present their "Evidence" in history class?

4. They haven't found any transitional forms. Just google transitional fossils or transitional organisms and you'll be amazed. One of my favorites is Tiktaalik.

5. If we evolved from Apes, why are they still here? Evolution isn't a ladder, but rather a branching tree. All Apes shared a common ancestor a tens of millions of years ago. Then one branch split forming Siamangs and Gibbons and possibly Orangutans, while the other became the common ancestor for the "Great Apes." Then another branch split, first from gorillas, then from Bonobos/Chimpanzees and Humans. The actual most recent break in terms of living species was Bonobos and Chimpanzees.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I myself being a Christian know fully well that the bible is not the whole story, it is to be interpreted.

I believe in God, but I still believe in evolution... I most certainly do not believe in creationism.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


wow, thanks. that helps a lot!



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spaceweasle7
 

I most definitely believe in creationism, the timeline of one 24 hr day or whatever is where I am confused.
Anyway, science, steeped in Darwinian survival of the fittest since 1850(?),
is biased against spiritual things. It's had it's days as racist, condescending tyranny.
Fake and skewed interpretation of fossils, piltdown man, nebraska man, lucy being anything but an ape, archaeopteryx with glued feathers, tiktaalik as the saviour, transitional, mudskipper.
The only problem is that the antichrist will bring HIS creationism and mandate IT'S curriculum. Why not let the children of America hear the arguments for creationism(and the different theories.......With Funding! Donations,etc.) BEFORE he comes.
The evolutionary-only scientists wouldn't have a monopoly!







[edit on 6-11-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


How do you feel about Zoroastian creation story being taught in science classes? Or any creation story for that matter?



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Since it has little to do with American history and belief, I would say no.
Maybe in Iran.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Since it has little to do with American history and belief, I would say no.
Maybe in Iran.


The point was how will YOU feel if people pushed their own version of creation story (other than creationism) to be taught in science classes.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


What does the Christian account of creationism have to do with American history or culture?

America was based on the political ideals of freedom of choice to religion and adherence or lack of thereof.

And to the OP : I'm not American, but I wouldn't support the teaching of creationism in classes. Where is the line drawn? Why include the Christian account and no others? What about the Chinese account of Pangu, or the Native American belief system?

Schooling is supposed to be a base camp for life. It is supposed to teach children the basics of language, arts, maths and science. Religious instruction may be provided in churches, or at home at the parents' wishes.
Religion has no place in public schools; and the "theory" of creationism is exactly that... religious doctrine. It is not, and never will be, a scientific theory.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Also, so MANY religions have similarities running through them as the great flood, the ark, the male and female- first humans, the rainbow being seen for the first time after the flood, and giants.
That would be a common ground for theses various religions, but , since this is America, the traditional model of the Bible should be used.
There wouldn't exactly be an alter-call and baptism after class.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
[


Religion has no place in public schools; and the "theory" of creationism is exactly that... religious doctrine. It is not, and never will be, a scientific theory.


Creationism has never been disproved, though.

And the big bang has never been proved....neither has the theory that life might have been 'seeded' from comets flying in from outer space.

To believe in.....and teach....any of these two viewpoints (theories)...requires as much faith as creationism.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Old Man
 


Which is why they are taught as theories. They aren't taught as dead certainties such as the precepts of thermodynamics, which are called laws.

Furthermore, there is at least some scientific evidence backing the big bang theory (residual radiation; visibility of the edge of the universe etc).

The extra-terrestrial seeding theory is not the most supported one. The most supported one is that basic amino acids were created as a result of the complex primordial chemical mixture, and a spark of life. This was replicated in the Miller-Urey experiment.


What is the evidence of creationism? That it says so in some book?

Look its all well and good disputing scientific theorems. You can refute the theory of evolution if you want, and it would be productive to do so since all theories are changed or confirmed by being tested to destruction.

You could even contend that Intelligent Design is a possibility, since that theory is in essence neither provable, nor disprovable.

But to actively teach children in a public school that the entire universe is 6,000 years old and created in a single day is nothing but backwardness. I don't begrudge people who believe in creationism and they are free to teach their own children whatever they want. But to impose their will and religious beliefs onto the children of others is simply unacceptable.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
There is NO LAW in America that says you can't teach creation science now, so I don;t get the assignment. Nor will any law stand the Courts test if one was passed, it has been tried.

Scopes monkey trial, SCOPES LOST and ACLU paid the 100 dollar fine...

Learn your history, then maybe you can do a decent job on your assignment...

My opinion is easy one, teach neither Evolution or Creation in schools as both are not provable by empirical science methods. By the way Gravity is not a theory it is a LAW, just as the thermodynamic laws are.

You get an F already...



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


I just started a thread about the "24 hour" issue, hope it helps

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spaceweasle7
 


SW. Maybe you could start off by putting the case foward that all the ´creation myths´ from all the 3000+ religions alive in the world today are that contradictory,vague and outlandish that they are all as feasible, plausible and credible as each other..and speculating on all of them as a whole or prioritizing one over the other is seemingly futile.
You could argue that teaching one sect/cult´s version of creationism over another is unjust and unfair due to a complete lack of tangible evidence and that teaching children a certain sect/cult´s creation myth as ´unequivocable fact´ could be construed as a diluted form of child abuse.
You could then argue that ,if religion be allowed out of it´s respective temples and permitted in schools at all,then it should be taught in a entirely separate class entitled ´non scientific origin concepts´ where children can learn all about creation myths from Korean,Aztec,Viking,Polynesian,Abrahamic,Native American,Rastafarian,Olmec,Eskimo... culture.
If you are so inclined,you could also point out that ´faith´ does not mean ´fact´ and, because all the non provable beleif systems on earth just rely on speculation,conjecture,heresay,rumour and guesswork,then teaching just one organisation´s doctrine of it to children in schools (other than under the guise of an historical context)is akin to preaching,converting,manipulating,conditioning,brainwashing and indoctrination.
Good luck with the paper.



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
There is NO LAW in America that says you can't teach creation science now, so I don;t get the assignment. Nor will any law stand the Courts test if one was passed, it has been tried.

Scopes monkey trial, SCOPES LOST and ACLU paid the 100 dollar fine...

Learn your history, then maybe you can do a decent job on your assignment...

My opinion is easy one, teach neither Evolution or Creation in schools as both are not provable by empirical science methods. By the way Gravity is not a theory it is a LAW, just as the thermodynamic laws are.

You get an F already...


No, the Supreme Court has ruled it Unconstitutional to teach creationism in science class rooms. The Supreme Court ruled that an Arkansas law teaching creationism was unconstitutional in the case of McLean vs Arkansas. Gravity is both a law and a theory. The law is that there is a force acting upon us to weight us down, keep the planets in orbit, etc. The theory is the explanation of the mechanics of that law.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

The extra-terrestrial seeding theory is not the most supported one. The most supported one is that basic amino acids were created as a result of the complex primordial chemical mixture, and a spark of life. This was replicated in the Miller-Urey experiment.

The Miller-Urey experiment was FLAWED, given the knowledge of the primordial atmosphere during 'supposed' creation. Known variations of Co2 and methane, sulfur dioxide, etc......


Actually, Miller used the wrong atmosphere model.The atmosphere model modern evolutionists say was around at the time of the development of the first cell was actually a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, methane, and sulfur dioxide.

Miller-Urey debate.



If your argument is that organic molecules is all that is required for the Miller-Urey experiment to be valid, then you are doing great. However, since the same things were not created in the corrected atmospheres, it is still invalid. The only organic compound that could be made from the corrected atmospheres is embalming fluid, which is a mix of cyanide and formaldehyde, as well as some other inert chemicals. embalming fluid is not enough to prove its validity. It is what would be the most prevalent secondary mixture in there, but it is a far cry from the possibility of life or even prelife.



The NY times 2008


Enshrined in high school textbooks, the Miller-Urey experiment raised expectations that scientists could unravel life’s origins with simple chemistry experiments. The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still-unsolved question of the origin of life.



Will evolutionary scientists ADMIT this mistake that they think gives them a leg-up?
No.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
All the Miller-Urey experiment was to do was to show that inorganic compounds can produce organic compounds. It's been misconstructed so many different ways, I understand why people get confused by it. In fact, the sources were rediscovered a few weeks ago and tested again. It yielded 4x as many amino acids as previously thought. And of course they're not going to form complex proteins and other structures in a few weeks. In addition, Miller-Urey wasn't the only experiment. Experiments have been done with several different atmosphere types that produce amino acids.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by FSBlueApocalypse]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join