Don't know what is done these days in education, but, I think the real concern is the lack of an objective and balanced approach. Selling Evolution is as bad as selling Creationism via the Bible. When we don't see an objective, balanced, honest, open minded approach, something is wrong. The lack of an open mind from institutions that purport to be open minded, objective and scientific is a give away.

Originally posted by Annee

What you and I believe is too foreign a concept to be inserted into that mess.

Ain't that the truth. (pun intended)

Though I wouldn't call it a belief, at least for me it lies in the absence of any conceptual truths, thus in the absence of belief.

However - - I suggest you invent a board game (in disguise) - - and perhaps make it free to all children's after care programs. FIRST - - get them thinking so they question what they have been taught - - by parents and teachers.

I would call it "things aren't what they're called" ...

For example:



This is not a tree, this is what we call a tree.

But that's for another thread.

[edit on 28 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Though I wouldn't call it a belief, at least for me it lies in the absence of any conceptual truths, thus in the absence of belief.

That sounds like a schrodingers dog twister.

To me accepting nothing is real - but a creation of thought - is real.

Originally posted by ReelView
Don't know what is done these days in education, but, I think the real concern is the lack of an objective and balanced approach. Selling Evolution is as bad as selling Creationism via the Bible. When we don't see an objective, balanced, honest, open minded approach, something is wrong. The lack of an open mind from institutions that purport to be open minded, objective and scientific is a give away.

OK, I'll admit that it's been a few... ahem, decades since I graduated from high school, but I don't remember evolution being 'sold' to us. It was presented as the most likely possible explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. We were never told that we must believe it, just understand the science behind it. It was up to us to decide whether it was true or false.

Have things changed that much in this amount of time?

I think this topic has degenerated into the usual creationism vs. evolution debate which wasn’t the original question.

Whether evolution is wrong or not this has no bearing on the validity of creationism.

For those arguing the point that creationism is a valid science can you provide the evidence for this?

Remember, however, that evidence for creationism does not consist of evidence against evolution, real or perceived. To prove evolution is true one does not have to invoke creationism. It should therefore be the case that to prove creationism one should not have to invoke evolution.

Once again, for those saying creationism is a valid scientific theory, please provide the evidence for this.

How about you all follow little old Australia's lead?

In high school I was taught evolution in science class.

In religion we were taught overviews of all the world's major religions including Christianity. These included research into the sacred texts, afterlife beliefs etc AS WELL AS CREATION STORIES.

Why not do that? Teach both sides of it and let the damn kids decide themselves what they want to believe.

Neither side should be jamming their (currently unproven) views down the childen's throats. Let them make up their own minds when they get old enough.

Originally posted by Lasheic
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.

Oh, I do apologise, I didn't think I'd need to explain that I was hugely oversimplifying, in order to explain something to somebody who didn't have a clue. Next time I'll post six pages of science that he won't even read. Because that would be productive.



Jaxon is doing a superb job.


[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

Originally posted by John Matrix
Human remains have been found that are 5,000 to 10,000 years old and older.....and they look the same as we do....although smaller.....which is attributed to poor nutrition, not that they are less evolved.

But why, to this day, do we still have a tail bone, if we never had a tail? Why would a 'creator' give us things we don't need? The only answer is that we did indeed have tails at some point - i.e we weren't 'human' as we understand now. We don't anymore. We evolved. We still have the bone - maybe some time way into the future, we will lose that bone. Then again, maybe we won't, since it's not causing us any problems. That's how evolution works.

As I said earlier, yes, I agree there are a lot of things that have no good explanation. But there are also a lot of things that can be used to prove evolution, and nothing, apart from speculation, that proves creation - even if you believe it makes perfect sense.

Genesis is not 'history recorded thousands of years ago' because there was nobody there at the time to record it.

But back to the original question, I really don't see the point or need to try and teach this stuff. There are many different 'creation' theories, and people will read the bible or other religious texts and learn this for themselves anyway. People are far less likely to read science books without encouragement.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

The problem I have with Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") is that the basic premise is flawed.

The argument goes that the Universe is far too complex and intricate to have developed by chance, in a blind, undirected way. Something as complex even as a single cell, they say, could not arise out of random chaotic events. The human eye is a miracle of complexity, impossible to develop without guidance. The human brain makes everything else look simple - more evidence that there must have been some sort of guiding Intelligence that directed this creation.

As they say, "No Watchmaker, no watch". You can't get such an intricate Universe from blind chance.

The problem with this is that whatever Intelligence created the Universe would be even more complex, intricate, and miraculous than the Universe It (or He, or She) created. This inevitably leads to the question, who created the Creator? How could such a Creator arise purely by chance, if the Universe He created couldn't have done it?

The answer is usually, "Well, the Creator has always existed, and always will". Fine. Except, you can skip the Creator then, and just say that the Universe has always existed, and always will.

If you say that some super-Creator created what we call God, then we get into an infinite regress, creators of creators of creators. There is no end of it, each creator more wonderful and miraculous than the one before it.

There is no reason, though, to stop at one Creator, as the Intelligent Design folks would have us do.

Creationism has no place in a science class, because it has no physical evidence to support it. What people argue about is not Creation, but evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't addess the issue of Creation at all. He made no guess as to how life started, much less how the Earth started. All Darwin did was to observe that species change over time, and that over very long periods of time, mutations can lead to the origins of new species that had not previously existed.

The main reason you find Intelligent Design being forced into biology classes is that according to the Bible, no new species are possible. God created them all. Some have died out, but species reproduce "each according to its kind", as the Bible says. Darwin says that new species arise all the time, as the result of natural processes; and that the presence of various species now is a result of those same natural processes.

Intelligent Design seeks to argue about the creation of life; evolution discusses its evolution, without discussiing its origins. Intelligent Design, even if it were shown to be true, does not preclude the possibility of evolution now causing new species to arise through natural processes. It simply claims to excplain how life began.

So aside from everything else, Intelligent Design (or Creationism) and Darwin's theory of evolution are discussing two different matters.

[edit on 8/28/2009 by chiron613]

Originally posted by spiritwomyn
So, is this an acceptable post?

Absolutely.

I guess what I am trying to say, admittedly very badly, is that Darwins theories are trying to explain things using the pieces of evidence that we have. There are lots of holes and he fully admitted this. But this is the way science works. Explain what you can, and hopefully these holes will be filled by later research - or we'll find something else to explain them. We need people to keep looking, so it's important to teach this stuff properly.

Creationism, on the other hand, isn't really a "theory", it's more like an answer. "God created us". You can't explain how, it just happened. So there is little to study or learn from it.

To the OP;

Make it equal......

I have said over and over agian it should be equal. God gives us a choice to chose him or not. In society we should have the freedom to chose weather we are for God or not.

In the Court Houses there should hang the 10 commandments on one wall and the evolution chart on another wall. In schools parents should have a choice between their child taking what you call "creation" or "evolution". There should be a minute of silence. One child can pray to God, and another can pick the lice from their hair in rememberance of their ancestors or what ever it is evolutionist do to honor their heritage. That way everyone would be happy. No?

Honestly in my state teachers can choose to teach creation or evolution, most chose evolution because it is a simpler concept to teach and learn.