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.

 

Ok then people, the next question- Why do you think Creationism SHOULD be taught in schools?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
and please for the love of whatever deity you believe in, no answers that amount to 'it should because-it should' or 'because X, Y or Z said so' it has to be your personal opinions and ideas on the subject.

Oh and no 'because evolution doesn't make sense' and leaving it at that, if you're going to say something broad and sweeping you're gonna have to break it down into how, why and explain why Creationism is better.

If you feel the need to quote Bible passages (I can't think why anyone of you should, after all I am asking for your opinion) be aware I have a Bible of my own and I will call you out on places of multiple interpretations as well as parts cut to support your argument.

One last thing, please take time to think about this question before answering, and I have more coming up.

Right, I think that's it, except to give credit where credit is due and say this thread was inspired by OTs previous one-go ahead




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
If they wish to bring their religious mumbo-jumbo into the classroom, I think they should segregate themselves in schools. Let them teach it to themselves and their children -- they don't matter to me one bit. And when they get sick, let a faith healer take care of it. I don't want my antibiotics wasted on them.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf
 


Don't want to turn this into another Creation vs Evo thread, so let's take religion out of this. Plain and simple, Evolution is as faith based as any religion. So you're children are still being indoctrinated by people who subscribe to a particulary FAITH based belief system. What's wrong with one more?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by one_man24
Evolution is as faith based as any religion.

Except that it isn't, unless you have the wrong idea about what it actually means.

"Evolution" - things change over time. This is obvious and doesn't even require proof, although there is plenty.

"Survival of the fittest" - aka - "Natural selection" - is also obvious. It's why certain animals no longer exist.

Now you may think "yes but there are holes that are unexplained", and you may be right - in fact I'd fully agree with you. There are certain things that cannot be explained by any current theory. But that does not negate the fact that evolution, and natural selection, are a fact of life. It just shows we don't know everything yet.


[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I personally believe that creationism should be taught in schools, but, not in science classrooms. Why? Because, it can't be definitively proven [much like evolution, but that's for another day]. Therefore, I think it would be good if an overall "World Religions" class were offered for kids to take, where the world's faiths/different theological ideas could be studied and discussed. A class such as this would, in my opinion, make education more rounded and allow a student to better understand what people of various faiths believe and, hopefully, would eliminate many misconceptions, much of the hatred, and false beliefs that we often hold about Religion X. Such as this:


Originally quoted by Kaytagg

And when they get sick, let a faith healer take care of it. I don't want my antibiotics wasted on them.


A course like this could also encourage students to better sift through issues like this themselves than to just believe Science Teacher Y or Atheistic Author Q because they have letters after there name.

Beyond all that, it would expose students to an opposing view of the world, which wouldn't be presented in a science classroom. And, I think we'd all agree, being exposed to opposing views is often a good thing.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by one_man24
 



Evolution is as faith based as any religion.


Even if we take that as true (I don't) in what way is that an argument for teaching creationism? If anything it's an argument for removing evolution.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The Bible is valid information as anyone can determine or cares about.
Science cares about carbon dating but take a pole on the subway.
Sure people know and can talk about carbon dating but is it a factor
in their life.
More of a factor is they have the Earth, wind (air) and fire for them
to use as they ride the rails to work.
Some how this is their reality given to them in some way explained
in the bible along with many other helpful ideas.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Groupies:

Perhaps the term 'Creationism' would technically be more ACCURATELY defined as 'creation of the physical cosmos by Design' rather than trying to read the contradictory creation myths in the Hebrew scriptures (see Creation Myth # 1 : Genesis 1:1 to 2:4b and compare that myth (written with the Prophet Hezekiel's Babylonian Accent, by the way, not Moses !) with Myth #2 (Genesis 2:4b to 4:30) written with a different paleo Hebrew writing style from the 7th century BC.

Compare the two myths side by side and you'll see that in the first Hezekielite Myth of Creation (with all of its bad grammar, sorry syntax, weirdo magick vocabulary ('tohuwabohu') and Babylonian loan words ('Tehom' (watery Chaos, which is Tehomah in Aramaic) for the word 'Tiamat', the Babylonian Chaos Goddess etc) the ORDER of CREATION is different (male and female are created together in the Image of Elohim on the '6th day') whereas in the 2nd Myth of Creation of the Jews, Adam is 'formed' (not created, 'bara') out of pre-existent mud material, to tend a pre-existent garden, then animals are created to be a sexmate for him, and when none of the animals could arouse 'Adam', a piece of flesh was taken from his 'side' and poof ! Hayaa was 'formed'.

There are about 12 other major differences between the two myths, most of which are totally NOT STUDIED by the 'bible-believing' public--because comparison of ancient myths by the common herd is never encouraged by the ministers, or the priests or the rebbes--it leads to too many embarrassing questions !

In the 1st Myth of the Jews, the Hezekielite language is continued in genesis chapter 5:1-3 'in the day when Elohim created man, male and female created he them in his own image and he CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM and blessed them in the day in which they were created' , so ADAM is both male and female according to Myth #1 (there is no EVE/Hayaa in Myth #1).

Why do Americans (and most 'English' speaking persons today) automatically think 'Creationism' means 'Creation by the clan-god of the Jews', rather than creation of the Unverses by say, the 'gods' (like 99% of most of the world's creation myths)? Or Creation by Brahma? or Agni? or Baal" or Chemosh? of Dagon? Or Abu-Fihamet ? Why always the same old tired nonsensical Creation myths in the socalled 'bible' as if 4,500 other myths also don't even exist ?

Why are English speaking persons on this planet so woefully ignorant about comparative religioin, as if YHWH / Elohim the clan-god of post Exilic Judaeism (after 587 BCE) magically appeared out of thin air without any precursors?

Student would do well to study Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts (aka ANET) to see how much of pre and post-Exilic Judaeism was stolen (or more politely, 'adapted') from earlier and far more sophisticated cultures of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Ugarit, most of which were locations were the Yahwistic Priests of Eretz Yisro'el had been deported, and absorbed their ideas...

Creationism DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ALL THE TIME MEAN CREATION BY THE CLAN GOD(S) OF ISRAEL IN THE BIBLE !! There is a BIGGER world out there people, open your eyes !!!!!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Even if we take that as true (I don't) in what way is that an argument for teaching creationism? If anything it's an argument for removing evolution.

Yes indeed, with the exception that evolution is science, creationism is not. How does teaching creationism help you to get a job? THAT is what school education should be about. There is far too much emphasis on after school and higher education these days, because children don't learn anywhere near as many useful things during normal school time as they used to.

I'm not sure how you could teach creationism without religion anyway. Or, in fact, at all. You could 'learn' all there is to know about it in five minutes, so there's really no need to teach it in school.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 




"Evolution" - things change over time. This is obvious and doesn't even require proof, although there is plenty.

"Survival of the fittest" - aka - "Natural selection" - is also obvious. It's why certain animals no longer exist.


Your understanding of evolution is as flawed and fictional as one_man's. If what you described is what you think evolution is, then one_man is right - You're just believing it on faith.

I'm not saying you have to have an evolutionary biologist caliber understanding. Nobody really cares if you don't know the specifics of Genetic Drift or Punctuated Equilibrium. But good GOD man, at least try to get the basics right.





As for whether or not creationism should be taught in schools. I absolutely think it does. When I was in school, I learned about Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman gods, Norse gods... and all their creation myths. But nobody really believes in those gods anymore. People DO still believe in Abrahamic gods though... and if you're going to live in a world in which contains a substantial population of believers in those religions, I think it would be useful and poignant to learn the basics of what those mythologies teach.

However, it has NO place in the science classroom.

Science classes should be primers on current academic theories and why their accepted so that students can be brought up to speed on the current state of academic acceptance. Science is not a democracy. It is a tyranny of evidence, and we are not obligated to debate hypothesis which are devoid of supporting evidence in high school. Debating the merits and evaluating the evidence of hypothesis is work for the Universities... not the uneducated student. If it's mentioned at all, it should be mentioned only in historical contexts alongside geocentricism, phrenology, and the four humors as a demonstration of how and why the scientific method works.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 


Obviously I agree about evolution being scientific and in case it wasn’t clear I do agree with the theory! Because it is subject to the scientific method and because, through this, it has been shown to be true it should be taught. However that wasn’t the question. The question was why creationism should be taught.

I do disagree with you on one aspect though, the idea that something should be included based on how useful they are in getting a job. That has to be a factor but if it was the only one then we could easily separate people into groups, provide strict vocational training and have done with it. Education should be about much more and potentially in the right context (such as in attempting to understand world cultures) the concept of creationism should be taught. It shouldn’t, however, be represented as a peer of evolution.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 




I personally believe that creationism should be taught in schools, but, not in science classrooms. Why? Because, it can't be definitively proven


This is a common misconception that can throw a lot of people off. Science is not a process of proving anything. Never has been, and never will be. By definition, Science will never prove anything because science is a process of falsification. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. Therefore, science works on probabilities. The more evidence there is, the stronger that evidence is, and the more complimentary with other evidence - the greater the probability of a hypothesis being true. The hypothesis with the greatest probability of being true, and which form comprehensive frameworks of explanation of facts, become theories... and evolution is the strongest theory in all of science.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I actually believe in an Energy Creationism.

But I DO NOT support Creationism be taught in school. Simply - there are too many versions.

We ALL know those fighting to teach Creationism in public school specifically mean Christian Creationism.

Do these Christians encourage and teach other concepts of religion in their churches? NO! (allow for exceptions)

Why would I want my child to be taught Christian concepts of Creationism in a non-elective public school?

I'd vote for elective schools such as college level to have classes in the study of ALL the various Creation beliefs.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
While evolution does require a certain amount of faith in order to fully believe in it, it's most definitely NOT as faith based as any other religion.

There is factual, tangible evidence for evolution. A fossil record. Geological records. There's real evidence. Not proof, but evidence. Something that creationism is missing.

Teach 'em both. I mean, we can't exactly prove either one beyond doubt, so teach both.

Besides, the curriculum for creationism is only one sentence. Should take about 49 seconds out of a single school day.

"Creationism is a belief that a supreme being created the universe and everything in it."


[edit on 8/28/2009 by Unit541]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The reason why people doubt evolution is because it cannot be observed. The changes in a species happens extremely slowly over thousands of years making observation impossible. If observation was possible then maybe accepting this theory as the best possible answer to the diversity of life on planet earth would be easier for people.

However, the question here is whether or not creationism should be taught in the classroom. The reason creationism should not be taught in school is simply because there is nothing that can be learned from it. By saying, God created everything and that is the way it is; students gain nothing from it, only more questions. School is not a place for religion, school is a place for teaching man's best understanding of how the world works.

There is absolutely no problem in debating abiogenesis versus creationism but schools are not the venue. If the purpose here is to give kids both theories then why don't churches present both theories as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Clickfoot
 




"Evolution" - things change over time. This is obvious and doesn't even require proof, although there is plenty.

"Survival of the fittest" - aka - "Natural selection" - is also obvious. It's why certain animals no longer exist.


Your understanding of evolution is as flawed and fictional as one_man's. If what you described is what you think evolution is, then one_man is right - You're just believing it on faith.

I'm not saying you have to have an evolutionary biologist caliber understanding. Nobody really cares if you don't know the specifics of Genetic Drift or Punctuated Equilibrium. But good GOD man, at least try to get the basics right.





As for whether or not creationism should be taught in schools. I absolutely think it does. When I was in school, I learned about Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Roman gods, Norse gods... and all their creation myths. But nobody really believes in those gods anymore. People DO still believe in Abrahamic gods though... and if you're going to live in a world in which contains a substantial population of believers in those religions, I think it would be useful and poignant to learn the basics of what those mythologies teach.

However, it has NO place in the science classroom.

Science classes should be primers on current academic theories and why their accepted so that students can be brought up to speed on the current state of academic acceptance. Science is not a democracy. It is a tyranny of evidence, and we are not obligated to debate hypothesis which are devoid of supporting evidence in high school. Debating the merits and evaluating the evidence of hypothesis is work for the Universities... not the uneducated student. If it's mentioned at all, it should be mentioned only in historical contexts alongside geocentricism, phrenology, and the four humors as a demonstration of how and why the scientific method works.


I agree. This argument has to be one of the most pointless debates ever to hit America. Aside from learning ancient creation myths and mythology such as Greek, Egyptian, Roman as their history demands you learn them in order to further understand the cultures, what is disagreeable is Christian creationists (or Abrahamic creationists) because for one, they will most likely teach their beliefs as truth (according to the teacher's own beliefs or skepticism if taught in the opposite fashion), and two, because if taught as truth, and not like the polytheistic religions (seen as false), then you may offend those who are of different religions like Hindus and pagans and also you are indoctrinating the pupils with an agenda.

Religion, like sex, drugs and basic life lessons, should be left up to the parent to teach and for the child to decide what is truth and what is not.

I am all for teaching the Bible as literature as well as other texts like the Odyssey/Illiad, Gilgamesh,etc. These texts are very important in that context. It makes the student extremely well read, and because the stories are simply told, they give great valuable lessons.

Science should be taught in schools, separate from Creationism, as it will be vital for your education as well, because we live in a world progressed by the advances of science.

When you get into college, then you can take theology, specific classes designed for furthering religious studies, or learning more about Norse folklore and mythology, etc. But because we live in a society that is progressing by the advances of science and technology -facts, it is important not to crash these two things (creationism and science) together as one depends on facts and the other on faith.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 



...rather than trying to read the contradictory creation myths in the Hebrew scriptures (see Creation Myth # 1 : Genesis 1:1 to 2:4b and compare that myth (written with the Prophet Hezekiel's Babylonian Accent, by the way, not Moses !) with Myth #2 (Genesis 2:4b to 4:30) written with a different paleo Hebrew writing style from the 7th century BC.

By Hezekiel, are you talking about Ezekiel? What creation account of his are you talking about? The creation accounts in Genesis don't contradict either. Genesis 1 is a general over all creation of the world, while Genesis 2:4 onwards is a more specific account of the creation of man.

As for the writing styles, you can't say that originally, Genesis 2 was written in a different style script, unless you have the originals. Also, there are tons of various scrolls and parchments of the Hebrew Scriptures. A scribe wouldn't have waited centuries to pick up again after he finished Genesis 1! What I'm trying to say is, if you look at the Hebrew scrolls, you will find that a text is uniform in it's writing. Naturally, since the Torah was copied thousands of times through the ages, naturally, variations in the writing style will occur, as that is normal, writing and language evolves. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?


the ORDER of CREATION is different (male and female are created together in the Image of Elohim on the '6th day')

Again, Genesis 1 is just general, while Genesis 2 is more specific.


whereas in the 2nd Myth of Creation of the Jews, Adam is 'formed' (not created, 'bara') out of pre-existent mud material, to tend a pre-existent garden,

Yeah, so? Since, according to the Bible, man was created last, everything was preexistant before man.


then animals are created to be a sexmate for him, and when none of the animals could arouse 'Adam', a piece of flesh was taken from his 'side' and poof ! Hayaa was 'formed'.

They were created as sexmates, for Adam, eh? How can that be since they were created before him (Genesis 1)? Even Genesis 2, unless you're reading it with an agenda, allows for the animals to have already been created. The Genesis account also simply says that Adam was looking for a helpmate, a helper, not a sexual partner.


In the 1st Myth of the Jews, the Hezekielite language is continued in genesis chapter 5:1-3 'in the day when Elohim created man, male and female created he them in his own image and he CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM and blessed them in the day in which they were created' , so ADAM is both male and female according to Myth #1 (there is no EVE/Hayaa in Myth #1).

Adam simply means man in Hebrew. So, what are you getting at? Genesis 5 is saying that God called the male and female creation man. It's a general thing, much like Genesis 1 is.

Out of curiosity, can you read ancient Hebrew, or are you just rehashing ideas that you read somewhere?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


In that sentence that you quoted, I wasn't talking about evolutionism, but, thanks for the definition about science. I'd always been taught, and had heard it said, that the goal of science is to observe and prove things. It's good to get the right idea.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackJackal
 




The reason why people doubt evolution is because it cannot be observed.


I think it has more to do with people simply not wanting to accept that it's true based on the evidence... regardless of whether or not their chosen form of creationism is pantheistic, abrahamic, or extra-terrestrial. Even many people who do claim to accept evolution seem to tend to cling to pre-Darwinistic concepts of evolution - such as "evolutionary ladders" which we can be a rung or two higher than other creatures on. It's unsettling to some, to suggest that humans are not special or unique.

Even when evolution and speciation has been observed in the lab, during a reproducible experiment - such as it was with nylonase digesting microbes... some people prefer to invent artificial barriers of "micro" and "macro" evolution which don't appear to exist in reality in order to reduce or ignore the implications evidence to a form which doesn't threaten their special place in nature or "god's creation".

Take "Survival of the Fittest" for example. This is not an accurate depiction of evolution. In fact, it was coined by an economist in an attempt to apply Darwin's theory of evolution to the financial markets. However "fittest" is a vague and subjective term. What is fit? Yet it carries with it a powerful implication. Humans have survived, and seem to dominate this planet (we don't, microbes do). Because we have survived, we are the fittest. We are top of the pyramid.

But this is incorrect. Environments are constantly in a state of change, and what is "fit" for one environment is not fit for all environments at all times. Humans are pathetically "unfit" for flight in comparison to the turkey - a point made with painful acuity when plummeting from 30,000ft in a crippled aircraft. How does one, further, objectively compare the "fitness" of a tree sloth against the "fitness" of a Jaguar? How does one reconcile the "fitness" of a tree sloth against that of it's ancestors who were much faster and nimbler with common human perceptions of "fitness"?

It's more accurate to say "Survival of the most well adapted to their environment".

But then again... that doesn't carry the "power" and ego-stroking implication of "survival of the fittest".



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Well, evolution is based in science, and science is few laws and a lot of theories (beliefs).

Creationism, is design by some omnipotent force/being, based off of historical accounts of a bunch of people who decided to write their experiences down as a holy book.

So, my personal perspective, is that they should cover both. Evolution fits in with biology, and Creationism falls in with History. Let people make their own decisions as to what to believe. We could sit here for the rest of our natural life debating creation vs evolution, but in the end we all end up the same way, dead... and you'll find out who's right then.

In response to the quote from the above post,

people will always doubt evolution because it cannot be observed... but people will always doubt god for the same reason.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by judgiebegoode]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join