[_ Old Earth _] Should creationism be in public schools?

[Deborah13]

With respect, I do not agree that the Biblical view (creationism) is a theory. I believe it is a fact but unable to be proven in human understanding.

I don't believe it's a theory either, but when it comes to scientific proof in that sense it becomes a theory, I think.

 

[Stan1953]

Well if they are going to put evolution in the classrooms, then yes Creationism should be given equal time. In the world's POV, they are both theories, even though the former is taught like it is fact. Other wise both should be removed from the public school system, not just creationism.

 

[jeff77]

If evolution teaches that we are here by chance and not created then I think that some form of creationism should be taught also.

 

[WIP]

If evolution teaches that we are here by chance and not created then I think that some form of creationism should be taught also.

Just any form will do? That is where the problem would come from. Who's version of creation would the one to be taught? One could say, "The Biblical form" but judging by how discussions go on this site that would be about as much a challenge as leaving things the way they are after we inject our human aspects. Either that or it would take five minutes to read the first chapter of Genesis and class could be dismissed because that is really all we have, right? God's explanation is short, sweet, and to the point. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well if they are going to put evolution in the classrooms, then yes Creationism should be given equal time. In the world's POV, they are both theories, even though the former is taught like it is fact. Other wise both should be removed from the public school system, not just creationism.

Creationism is not held as a theory from a scientific POV, it is religious dogma. There is no formulated theory built on the scientific method that is acceptable or valid from a scientific stand point.

YEC, and it's variants is an article of faith.

This also seems to misunderstand the term "theory," a theory is not just a supposition, it is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Evolution is a theory by this definition, Creationism is not.

 

[Stan1953]

Creationism is not held as a theory from a scientific POV, it is religious dogma. There is no formulated theory built on the scientific method that is acceptable or valid from a scientific stand point.
YEC, and it's variants is an article of faith.
This also seems to misunderstand the term "theory," a theory is not just a supposition, it is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Evolution is a theory by this definition, Creationism is not.

Well it is according to Webster, so I'm not too concerned with how some scientists equivocate on the meaning of 'theory'. Some scientist also accept creationism is a valid theory. Scientists don't make the rules as to what is included in the classroom.
Both sides have well substantiated explanations, so I guess it depends on who is to be believed. I choose God and His Word.

 

[jeff77]

Just any form will do? That is where the problem would come from. Who's version of creation would the one to be taught? One could say, "The Biblical form" but judging by how discussions go on this site that would be about as much a challenge as leaving things the way they are after we inject our human aspects. Either that or it would take five minutes to read the first chapter of Genesis and class could be dismissed because that is really all we have, right? God's explanation is short, sweet, and to the point. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

Yeah, deciding which version could be a problem. I don't know much about YEC or old earth, I just believe that God created the earth. I would just like to see an alternative to the teaching of evolution. I realize that not all evolutionist believe we are here by chance and some are theistic. I wonder how many theistic biology teachers include in their lesson that God caused the big bang?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well it is according to Webster, so I'm not too concerned with how some scientists equivocate on the meaning of 'theory'.

This is rather ironic as you just committed the equivocation fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning or sense. The definition I provided, is a perfectly acceptable meaning of the term, and it is the intended meaning when used by scientists.

I find it is the best and most honest approach, when we try to understand people for what they actually meant, rather than what is convenient for us.

Some scientist also accept creationism is a valid theory.

Even more believe in Evolution, a huge majority in fact. However, it is a fallacy to appeal to authority as something's truthfulness is not determined by a person's assent to the proposition.

Scientists don't make the rules as to what is included in the classroom.

Indeed they don't, that would be the government. Scientists however influence this policy, and have done so in a court of law in defense of evolution. Without the discoveries of scientists, there simply is no content to teach the subjects required.

Both sides have well substantiated explanations, so I guess it depends on who is to be believed. I choose God and His Word.

A scientific theory isn't religious dogma, it is acquired through the scientific method, observation and experimentation. I too believe in God's Word, as do many Christians who believe in both the Bible and Evolution.

People who try to convince Christians that those who embrace evolution aren't actually believers will only drive more and more youth from our churches. Anyone with a basic scientific education can see through the tactics of Young Earth Creationists, and that alone I think would suffice for ruling out that doctrine.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yeah, deciding which version could be a problem. I don't know much about YEC or old earth, I just believe that God created the earth. I would just like to see an alternative to the teaching of evolution. I realize that not all evolutionist believe we are here by chance and some are theistic. I wonder how many theistic biology teachers include in their lesson that God caused the big bang?

Why would that be necessary in a biology class? Science is about the natural world, not the super natural world. It is methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism.

 

[Stan1953]

This is rather ironic as you just committed the equivocation fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning or sense. The definition I provided, is a perfectly acceptable meaning of the term, and it is the intended meaning when used by scientists.
I find it is the best and most honest approach, when we try to understand people for what they actually meant, rather than what is convenient for us.

and my POINT is that scientists should not get to define theory to fit their understanding, otherwise theologians can do the same thing. From the schools perspective they are both theoretical.

Even more believe in Evolution, a huge majority in fact. However, it is a fallacy to appeal to authority as something's truthfulness is not determined by a person's assent to the proposition.

Well then why do it to start with?

Indeed they don't, that would be the government. Scientists however influence this policy, and have done so in a court of law in defense of evolution. Without the discoveries of scientists, there simply is no content to teach the subjects required.

Yes but we're discussing the theory of evolution here, not all science.

A scientific theory isn't religious dogma, it is acquired through the scientific method, observation and experimentation. I too believe in God's Word, as do many Christians who believe in both the Bible and Evolution.

Apparently your have never had a conversation with Richard Dawkins? He is about as irrational and opinionated as they come.
Here's a man who believes that the world was created out of nothing by the big bang, but doesn't believe God could do that..

People who try to convince Christians that those who embrace evolution aren't actually believers will only drive more and more youth from our churches. Anyone with a basic scientific education can see through the tactics of Young Earth Creationists, and that alone I think would suffice for ruling out that doctrine.

That has been said for decades now and does not have any corroboration in actual reality. Truth is truth, no matter what young people may or may not believe. This kind of statement just shows your bias and does not deal with the OPs question. When it comes to choosing who to believe, we are instructed to choose God because He says it is so, not choose science because they say it is truth.
No one can serve God and science too.

 

[jasonc]

how many adams are there according the theistic evolutionist? how many did man come from?

 

[MarkT]

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.

Do you consider that this is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

Depends on who is doing the science I guess.

Creationism uses the Genesis account which is OK. Speciation has evidence and it is also supported in Genesis ie. they were made after their kind. The TOE on the other hand claims common descent. But it has no experimental evidence for the claim. So to me this decision in the UK is just political correctness and evidence God has abandoned them and given them over to a base mind.

 

[Stan1953]

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.
Depends on who is doing the science I guess.

This in not surprising at all. Unbelievers have totally adopted the religion of Evolution, and sadly don't even know it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

and my POINT is that scientists should not get to define theory to fit their understanding, otherwise theologians can do the same thing. From the schools perspective they are both theoretical.

I'm not sure what you've learned about language, or how words are defined. How come they keep coming out with different dictionaries? Shouldn't it have stayed the same?

No.. words are defined by how they are used, there isn't a stock single definition for most terms, but they rather have a semantic range. So when, creationists say, "its only a theory," they are either ignorant of what the word means, or are less than honest in their presentation of the other view.

We could call it, the super duper explanation 5000, and define that the same way if you'd like?

Well then why do it to start with?

Why appeal to authorities? I'm not sure, you're the one who did that. There are instances where it is valid, but this isn't one of them.

Yes but we're discussing the theory of evolution here, not all science.

I do think I even mentioned the exact word "evolution" in the quoted text, so I'm a little confused by this statement. You said scientists don't decide what is taught in a classroom, and I agreed, I even alluded to the government's decision on the matter. Where they said the following in in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Apparently your have never had a conversation with Richard Dawkins? He is about as irrational and opinionated as they come.
Here's a man who believes that the world was created out of nothing by the big bang, but doesn't believe God could do that..

I'm actually quite familiar with him and have read some of his works. I've never had a conversation with him before though, and he more so is and advocate against Creationism, than he is against religion in general.

I'm not sure how relevant this is though, as I disagree with him on a great number of things.

That has been said for decades now and does not have any corroboration in actual reality. Truth is truth, no matter what young people may or may not believe.

Hmm... I remember saying something about this earlier.

"as something's truthfulness is not determined by a person's assent to the proposition."

This kind of statement just shows your bias and does not deal with the OPs question.

Indeed, I have a bias towards what I believe to be true. Do you not?

When it comes to choosing who to believe, we are instructed to choose God because He says it is so, not choose science because they say it is truth.
No one can serve God and science too.

Are you claiming that science is an idol for me? If so, then you'll find I spend very little time musing on the subject.

Perhaps both are true? Ardent literalism in response to liberalism is a relatively new thing, this brand of fundamentalism basically assumes dishonesty the part of just about anything secular.

I have done my best to be as honest as I possibly can with what I believe, not caring what other people think of me. My salvation is dependent on faith in Jesus Christ, not my stance on evolution, which is why I am passionate about opposing those who seek to make this an essential issue. It is a secondary issue, and there are many brothers in the Lord who believe in evolution, and perhaps see Genesis a little different than yourself.

If evolution was disproven tomorrow I would reject it, as I am interested in the truth.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This in not surprising at all. Unbelievers have totally adopted the religion of Evolution, and sadly don't even know it.

How is evolution a religion?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Creationism uses the Genesis account which is OK. Speciation has evidence and it is also supported in Genesis ie. they were made after their kind. The TOE on the other hand claims common descent. But it has no experimental evidence for the claim. So to me this decision in the UK is just political correctness and evidence God has abandoned them and given them over to a base mind.

There is experimental evidence that supports evolution, but we should of course understand what kind of experiments are possible with providing evidence for common descent.

For instance, there is Lenski's experiment with E-coli bacteria, which spanned 60,000 generations. In this experiment, Lenski observed that the E-coli bacteria gained the ability to grow on citrate, and metabolize citrate in an aerobic environment. This is simply looking at a relatively simple organism as E-coli, for a little over 20 years.

There is also of course, observation, which of course is the primary means for studying evolution as there has been billions of years of this planet's history. Fossils have various dates that span millions of years, where species come and go. Are these new species simply popping out of nowhere, or does the obvious relationship to other animals point to the truthfulness of evolution?

Not to mention the findings from the branch of biology known as phylogenetics, which studies the relationship between groups of organisms. If you want to learn some more about it, the internet is at your disposal.

I'm not scientist, so I don't pretend to be a huge expert on the topic, but I have learned enough to be convinced that it is true.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

how many adams are there according the theistic evolutionist? how many did man come from?

Depends on who you are talking to.

 

[Stan1953]

I'm not sure what you've learned about language, or how words are defined. How come they keep coming out with different dictionaries? Shouldn't it have stayed the same?

I wouldn't worry about my knowledge if I were you.
Connotations mainly and making money. To avoid rabbit trails, just show us where theory means something other than what it means as defined by wordsmiths.

No.. words are defined by how they are used, there isn't a stock single definition for most terms, but they rather have a semantic range. So when, creationists say, "its only a theory," they are either ignorant of what the word means, or are less than honest in their presentation of the other view.

Words have different connotations, based on HOW they are used, not definitions. Are you not a creationist?
That may be for some, but this forum is full of people who either refuse to acknowledge such, even when they know it. What you seem to be advocating here is what's referred to as Semantic Range Fallacy, or illegitimate totality transfer, and that is not acceptable either. Regardless, Evolution has NOT been proven, despite your efforts to assert otherwise.

We could call it, the super duper explanation 5000, and define that the same way if you'd like?

Being facetious and condescending won't help your credulity what-so-ever.

Why appeal to authorities? I'm not sure, you're the one who did that. There are instances where it is valid, but this isn't one of them.

Actually I responded to you doing it, but again this condescending attitude of yours that comes through by saying "this isn't one of them", doesn't really help to have a productive discussion now does it?

I do think I even mentioned the exact word "evolution" in the quoted text, so I'm a little confused by this statement. You said scientists don't decide what is taught in a classroom, and I agreed, I even alluded to the government's decision on the matter. Where they said the following in in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

So then why bring up what scientists view "theory" to connote, as it doesn't matter. This statement is ONE opinion of one state, and IMO, wrong. Regardless, not the point of the OP.

I'm actually quite familiar with him and have read some of his works. I've never had a conversation with him before though, and he more so is and advocate against Creationism, than he is against religion in general.
I'm not sure how relevant this is though, as I disagree with him on a great number of things.

It is relevant to your post I responded to that stated; A scientific theory isn't religious dogma, it is acquired through the scientific method, observation and experimentation. I know exactly what he is all about, and he is religious in his fervor against creationism.

Hmm... I remember saying something about this earlier.
"as something's truthfulness is not determined by a person's assent to the proposition."
Indeed, I have a bias towards what I believe to be true. Do you not?

To what the properly exegeted Word of God is YES.

Are you claiming that science is an idol for me? If so, then you'll find I spend very little time musing on the subject.

I said what I meant. Please don't equivocate on my responses.

Perhaps both are true? Ardent literalism in response to liberalism is a relatively new thing, this brand of fundamentalism basically assumes dishonesty the part of just about anything secular.

Nope, just those that are or defend what is. I wouldn't try to label those who you believe don't agree with your POV, with this type or any type of label, as that would be simple stereo typing which you have no reason to do.

I have done my best to be as honest as I possibly can with what I believe, not caring what other people think of me. My salvation is dependent on faith in Jesus Christ, not my stance on evolution, which is why I am passionate about opposing those who seek to make this an essential issue. It is a secondary issue, and there are many brothers in the Lord who believe in evolution, and perhaps see Genesis a little different than yourself.
If evolution was disproven tomorrow I would reject it, as I am interested in the truth.

I'm not sure what elicited this kind of response, as I was addressing your statement where you wrote; People who try to convince Christians that those who embrace evolution aren't actually believers will only drive more and more youth from our churches. Anyone with a basic scientific education can see through the tactics of Young Earth Creationists, and that alone I think would suffice for ruling out that doctrine. It assumed facts NOT in evidence and stereo typed those Christians who don't accept evolution as uninformed or uneducated. Just more condescension from where I sit.
As it has never been proved in God's eyes and as God Word says differently, I don't see the hesitation to disprove a world view.

 

[reba]

This thread is moving to the science lab

If you find you cant post in the Christianity and Science forum there is an agreement that needs to be acknowledged..

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I wouldn't worry about my knowledge if I were you.
Connotations mainly and making money. To avoid rabbit trails, just show us where theory means something other than what it means as defined by wordsmiths.

I wonder if you know what connotation means, this basically agrees with my overall point.

Where did I say that theory wasn't defined this way by wordsmiths? Here are a few examples for you.


theory
the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory


the·o·ry (th

-r

, thîr

)n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

Words have different connotations, based on HOW they are used, not definitions. Are you not a creationist?

A definition is a statement of the exact meaning of a word, and depending on the usage of that word, it can indeed carry a different connotation. Which means that there is a range of meaning for most words, and we then have to regard the word as how it is used.

I'm not a Creationist by how the UK defines it, but I do believe that God created the universe.

That may be for some, but this forum is full of people who either refuse to acknowledge such, even when they know it. What you seem to be advocating here is what's referred to as Semantic Range Fallacy, or illegitimate totality transfer, and that is not acceptable either. Regardless, Evolution has NOT been proven, despite your efforts to assert otherwise.

No, I'm not. Do you even know what that is?

I'm not picking a favorable definition out of the Semantic range, nor am I saying that it means it's entire semantic range all at the same time. I am saying that when scientists call something a theory, that they mean something very distinct, and it isn't conjecture. Please see the definitions above, and please validate that I have committed a fallacy when you make such a charge.

Being facetious and condescending won't help your credulity what-so-ever.

Was making a joke, but if you want to be so contentious then be my guest. I also am not sure you know what credulity means. Just thought I should point that out... or perhaps you meant credibility. *shrug

Actually I responded to you doing it, but again this condescending attitude of yours that comes through by saying "this isn't one of them", doesn't really help to have a productive discussion now does it?

You responded to me appealing to authority? Can you please cite this?

So then why bring up what scientists view "theory" to connote, as it doesn't matter. This statement is ONE opinion of one state, and IMO, wrong. Regardless, not the point of the OP.

This was actually a decision from a federal judge, so this applies across the board for all 50 states.

It's important to understand what people mean by what they say, so that we don't create a caricature of their arguments.

It is relevant to your post I responded to that stated; A scientific theory isn't religious dogma, it is acquired through the scientific method, observation and experimentation. I know exactly what he is all about, and he is religious in his fervor against creationism.

What does your opinion of the behavior of one man have anything to do with our discussion? Evolution isn't religious dogma, it is a scientific theory.

To what the properly exegeted Word of God is YES.

It seems you and I have a difference in regards to what we think proper exegesis is. That's fine with me.

I said what I meant. Please don't equivocate on my responses.

Hmm, to equivocate is to use unclear language in order to mislead someone. I was looking to clarify your ambiguous statement, that alluded to Jesus' statement made against money and it being an idol.

If one "serves" science simply by believing evolution, then by your position, it seems to be that they have an idol.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nope, just those that are or defend what is. I wouldn't try to label those who you believe don't agree with your POV, with this type or any type of label, as that would be simple stereo typing which you have no reason to do.

Are you saying that literalism and fundamentalism aren't accurate descriptions?

I'm not sure what elicited this kind of response, as I was addressing your statement where you wrote; People who try to convince Christians that those who embrace evolution aren't actually believers will only drive more and more youth from our churches. Anyone with a basic scientific education can see through the tactics of Young Earth Creationists, and that alone I think would suffice for ruling out that doctrine. It assumed facts NOT in evidence and stereo typed those Christians who don't accept evolution as uninformed or uneducated. Just more condescension from where I sit.
As it has never been proved in God's eyes and as God Word says differently, I don't see the hesitation to disprove a world view.

It is my opinion that people who tend to disagree with evolution generally have been misinformed or simply lack information. Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

You and I also disagree about God's Word, and what is ultimately true here. And I was just making a statement that I have done my best to know the truth on this subject, but I place my faith in Christ alone, not creationism.