Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[freethinker83]

Which is why I suggest teaching theistic evolution with a neutral term for God. If no reference is made to the Prime Mover then the school is teaching atheism and thus establishing a religion.

I understand your viewpoint, but evolution does not need a neutral term for God. Evolution makes no claim on God one way or the other; how much more neutral can you be? The theory of evolution neither claims to prove or disprove a God.

 

[JillyAnn]

Evolution in science regardless of level of education…I took vertebrate bio in college and it was the evolution of vertebrates very interesting stuff!!

Creationism was part of religion in grammar and high school and humanities in college. To me, this was a great way to approach the topics. I was able to sort of draw my own conclusions about what I believe to be “right”.

I love both science and religion so I really enjoyed this.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I understand your viewpoint, but evolution does not need a neutral term for God. Evolution makes no claim on God one way or the other; how much more neutral can you be? The theory of evolution neither claims to prove or disprove a God.

It does, unless it is taught in such a way that random natural selection is not the sole cause for the rise of man.

 

[freethinker83]

It does, unless it is taught in such a way that random natural selection is not the sole cause for the rise of man.

I still disagree; evolution is neutral in terms of God’s existance.

If I were to say that Bob’s house burned down because it was made of flammable materials which were ignited it would not establish the cause of the fire. It could be that the fire was started by man, by lightening, by a gas explosion, etc. The claim that Bob’s house burned down because it was made of flammable materials makes no claim as to what caused the fire. Look at evolution the same way. It does not say that God did not cause evolution, nor does it say that fairies did not cause evolution.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I still disagree; evolution is neutral in terms of God’s existance.

If I were to say that Bob’s house burned down because it was made of flammable materials which were ignited it would not establish the cause of the fire. It could be that the fire was started by man, by lightening, by a gas explosion, etc. The claim that Bob’s house burned down because it was made of flammable materials makes no claim as to what caused the fire. Look at evolution the same way. It does not say that God did not cause evolution, nor does it say that fairies did not cause evolution.

But if you say the ONLY cause of the house burning down is that it is made of flammable material which just spontaneously ignited, then that is silly.

Likewise if a public school textbook says the ONLY cause of man is random natural selection which just happened, that is both silly and establishing atheism.

 

[freethinker83]

But if you say the ONLY cause of the house burning down is that it is made of flammable material which just spontaneously ignited, then that is silly.

Likewise if a public school textbook says the ONLY cause of man is random natural selection which just happened, that is both silly and establishing atheism.

My example wasn’t really perfect, but I couldn’t think of a better analogy.

So getting back on topic, you disagree with the teaching of evolution? The way evolution was taught to me made no mention of a God. In your mind that means it establishes that there is no god (which I disagree with). Suggesting God began evolution or created life obviously establishes a God.

For argument’s sake I will even grant you that evolution assumes there is no God. Is it still wrong to teach this theory if creationism is still taught in the philosophy classroom?

How (if at all) would you recommend evolution be taught in public schools?

 

[JillyAnn]

LOL!! I thought this discussion was a poll of where we thought these topics were best taught. This can go one forever!! LOL!!

 

[freethinker83]

LOL!! I thought this discussion was a poll of where we thought these topics were best taught. This can go one forever!! LOL!!

That was my original intention. I didn’t really want to discuss the merits of evolution/creationism, simply which should be taught, and in what setting.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps there should be different classes and parents should decide. Then those of us who want our children to be taught evolutionary theory could send them to one class and those who want ‘creation science’ could send them to another class.

This would have distinct advantages in multi-cultural areas where the ‘creation science’ class could compare Christian creation science with Sikh creation science, Buddhist creation science, animist creation science and so on.

 

[JillyAnn]

But the point of education is to be exposed to all theories and factual information. IMHO, parents are not necessarily the most appropriate party to determine what children should learn in school. Children require a base of education that should include science…

 

[Kaninchen]

But the point of education is to be exposed to all theories and factual information. IMHO, parents are not necessarily the most appropriate party to determine what children should learn in school. Children require a base of education that should include science…

They could do interesting experiments to find out whether the Earth is moving along being carried on the back of a metaphysical turtle, things like that.

 

[freethinker83]

Perhaps there should be different classes and parents should decide. Then those of us who want our children to be taught evolutionary theory could send them to one class and those who want ‘creation science’ could send them to another class.

This would have distinct advantages in multi-cultural areas where the ‘creation science’ class could compare Christian creation science with Sikh creation science, Buddhist creation science, animist creation science and so on.

I like the thought, but I personally believe students should be taught about evolution in a science class and that they should be exposed to major religious beliefs in a world religion class. They could then have the possibility of more advanced/specific classes after that.

I do not yet have children, but when I do I would not deny them the knowledge of evolution or various religious beliefs. I think it is important that they are not ignorant of what others believe.

 

[Kaninchen]

I do not yet have children, but when I do I would not deny them the knowledge of evolution or various religious beliefs. I think it is important that they are not ignorant of what others believe.

Oh, that’s what Religious Education classes are for, I was contemplating Religious Science classes for people who want them.

Mind you, I’ve been known to argue that only Creation Science should be taught in American schools - but I’m a European so my motivation in saying might be considered ‘questionable’.

 

[JillyAnn]

Ahhhhhh…now I see!!! That sounds like fun!!!

 

[kbachler]

I have burned out the evolutionists. All they talk about is how the person was forms out of some kind of natural selection. Well then, how did the plants and food and trees and algae evolve. After all if man was developed out of natural selection plants also must have evolved. How did the pear tree first start and was it a pear that fell and was changed into a potato? Or did the orange come first and then change into the apple? Or maybe it was the grape, maybe the grape fell from the tree and under the drying of the sun changed into a raisin and children who were the offspring of Adam and Eve picked them up and said yum-yun.

Then of course the question is asked about the skeleton of Adam. If anyone finds a skeleton with a missing rib, we all know this is Adam.

All living things formed out of a natural selection process. It’s a very beautiful and intricate process, and those who understand it can certainly see the hand of God in the process.

The creation story in Genesis is clearly allegorical, and it can also be shown is a merger of two separate stories. There are some clear flaws in the stories.

That said, there are also some very good and deep thoughts in the stories. The ORDER of events in the creation stories fairly clearly follows the order of events as we have been able to best determine them scientifically. Humans are the only animal to routinely bear their children in pain and this is due to the relative brain size - interestingly Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and Eve was given this punishment. So, I can easily accept that if a divine being were trying to convey a story of creation to a scientifically illiterate society, the Biblical creation story would be a fairly good attempt to do so.

I hope you find these points helpful.

BTW - remember that people used to say that Galileo’s science couldn’t be right either.

 

[kbachler]

Public schools are not allowed to establish any form of religion, including atheism.

If non-theistic evolution is taught alone, atheism is established.
If creationism is taught, theism is established.

The only solution is to teach theistic evolution (“some other theory”) and use a neutral term like “First Cause” or “Prime Mover” to refer to God.

This argument is not strong. Why not argue if “non-theistic mathematics is taught alone”?

Creationism is not taught as a science because it doesn’t meat the definition of what is a science. There is no hypothesis, nothing to be tested, etc. The story may be a truly fabulous allegory intended to explain how the universe/world was created to a scientifically infantile society - but that doesn’t make it science.

I think we need to stop the teaching on “non-theistic electronics” next.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This argument is not strong. Why not argue if “non-theistic mathematics is taught alone”?

Mathematics does not make claims about how the universe or life arose. Physics makes a claim about how the Universe arose: the Big Bang. But most physicists and physics books are honest and admit that they do not know what caused the Bang. If they are really honest they will admit that there is an unknown pre-temporal First Cause.

Why don’t we ask for the same honesty from biologists?

Creationism is not taught as a science because it doesn’t meat the definition of what is a science.

I never asked for creationism to be taught. I asked for theistic evolution to be taught. In other words, I want evolution to be taught but not atheism.

 

[freethinker83]

Mathematics does not make claims about how the universe or life arose. Physics makes a claim about how the Universe arose: the Big Bang. But most physicists and physics books are honest and admit that they do not know what caused the Bang. If they are really honest they will admit that there is an unknown pre-temporal First Cause.

Why don’t we ask for the same honesty from biologists?

I never asked for creationism to be taught. I asked for theistic evolution to be taught. In other words, I want evolution to be taught but not atheism.

Biologists do theorize a cause. Many believe a chemical reaction took place in an “ooze.” This is not proven, so not all claim it yet.

Also, in a scientific sense, not knowing the cause of something does not automatically equal God, just as it does not equal fairies or dragons. It would be unscientific to assume the cause of life was God, which is why it does not belong in the science classroom. Theistic evolution is not scientific. Can you explain what is wrong with being presented a theory of evolution that makes no claim for or against a god?

As I said, I have no problem with the idea of creation being presented in a philosophy or religion class.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Biologists do theorize a cause. Many believe a chemical reaction took place in an “ooze.” This is not proven, so not all claim it yet.

Spontaneously, of course. Real science requires a chain of causality for every effect. The reaction must have a cause. If the ooze is the cause, that needs a cause too. Water could be the cause of the ooze. How did water develop on earth? An icy comet perhaps? Where did the comet come from? The Kuiper belt. How did the Kuiper belt form? Interstellar gas. Where did the gas come from? It formed during the cooling phase of the Big Bang. Where did the Big Bang come from?

Also, in a scientific sense, not knowing the cause of something does not automatically equal God, just as it does not equal fairies or dragons. It would be unscientific to assume the cause of life was God, which is why it does not belong in the science classroom.

However, it WOULD be scientific to note the following:

1. Time began at the Big Bang, so the First Cause is outside of time, which is why the First Cause has no cause.
2. Time and space are two sides of the same coin, so no space existed before the Big Bang, either; so the First Cause is not subject to limitations of space.
3. The Universe is expanding infinitely, meaning there is infinite energy (or at least infinite potential energy which will grow to infinity) in the Universe; and
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires the Cause of the Big Bang to MORE energetic as the infinitely-energetic Universe thereby caused.

Theistic evolution is not scientific.

So much for that.

Can you explain what is wrong with being presented a theory of evolution that makes no claim for or against a god?

Because a theory of evolution must explain the CAUSE of evolution. If it does not do so it is not valid science. So there’s the beef—the problem is not that our children are being taught evolution, the problem is that they’re not being taught a valid theory.

Now, I do agree that whether the First Cause is personal or impersonal is something that cannot be known in the lab and so it should be taught in a philosophy or religion class. But if you don’t acknowledge that the First Cause exists, you cannot have valid science because you can’t explain why anything exists.

P.S. Just so you know, we, the Catholics, invented this thing called science.

 

[freethinker83]

Spontaneously, of course. Real science requires a chain of causality for every effect. The reaction must have a cause. If the ooze is the cause, that needs a cause too. Water could be the cause of the ooze. How did water develop on earth? An icy comet perhaps? Where did the comet come from? The Kuiper belt. How did the Kuiper belt form? Interstellar gas. Where did the gas come from? It formed during the cooling phase of the Big Bang. Where did the Big Bang come from?

However, it WOULD be scientific to note the following:

1. Time began at the Big Bang, so the First Cause is outside of time, which is why the First Cause has no cause.
2. Time and space are two sides of the same coin, so no space existed before the Big Bang, either; so the First Cause is not subject to limitations of space.
3. The Universe is expanding infinitely, meaning there is infinite energy (or at least infinite potential energy which will grow to infinity) in the Universe; and
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires the Cause of the Big Bang to MORE energetic as the infinitely-energetic Universe thereby caused.

So much for that.

Because a theory of evolution must explain the CAUSE of evolution. If it does not do so it is not valid science. So there’s the beef—the problem is not that our children are being taught evolution, the problem is that they’re not being taught a valid theory.

Now, I do agree that whether the First Cause is personal or impersonal is something that cannot be known in the lab and so it should be taught in a philosophy or religion class. But if you don’t acknowledge that the First Cause exists, you cannot have valid science because you can’t explain why anything exists.

P.S. Just so you know, we, the Catholics, invented this thing called science.

I will preface this by saying I am not a scientist, so I do not know most of these things in great detail.

Many biologists today believe everything that ended up becoming life got here as a result of the big bang, comets, etc, so that explains that part of it.

As far as what happened before the big bang, we do not know, and I think it is likely we will never know. I am okay with that. I think it is better and more scientific to say “we don’t know” than to assume a creator. Speaking scientifically I don’t see how the best answer for “we don’t know” automatically equals a God. This is why I say it is okay to teach it in a philosophy or religion class, but not science. I think it is alright to teach evolution paired with the big bang without knowing what came before.

As far as the Church inventing science, I don’t know how you can say that. There were scientists in the ancient world long before the time of Christ. Even if Catholics “invented science” what difference does that make?

I agree with you though, we don’t know what happened before the big bang, and that is fine for now! I just want my future children to be educated to think critically and base their thinking on evidence and not assumptions.

Also, please do not take any of this as a personal attack on you or your beliefs, it is not at all.

Peace

-Steve