jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (128 posts)

Evolution/Creationism: which should be taught in schools, if either?

  1. TheBlondie profile image61
    TheBlondieposted 5 years ago

    Religious people often think the teaching of evolution should be banned, and vice-versa for non-religious people. What id your opinion? Should evolution, creationism, or neither be taught? Why?

    1. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As you say, evolution should be taught with other sciences, while creationism can be taught along with other religious myths.

      The problem is that some religions are acknowledged as myths by everyone while others are not. In fact, some religions that contain strong beliefs in creationism rule the thinking of millions of people today. They wouldn't take to kindly to having their strong religious beliefs categorized alongside other "superstitions and myths" that everyone agrees and acknowledges.

      This places the education system in an awkward position having to try and placate both sides of the argument, with no solution readily available that will satisfy both. smile

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is not something that happens on a frequent basis, but I am in complete agreement with Beelzedad on this one.  I think that both should be taught under separate categories.  Perhaps the compromise can be made to teach creationism under something like Religion/Philosophy/Mythology (rather than simply mythology), and teaching evolution under Science. 

        Teaching both allows for a more well-rounded education, and allows the child to critically think his/her own way into what path he/she chooses to follow.

        smile

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you a million, billion, babillion percent.

    2. Apostle Jack profile image61
      Apostle Jackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I say keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges.
      It's like oil and water, or Church and state,they don't mix.

    3. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Truth should be taught. In this case both sides of the issue should be taught along with all the opposing views to both sides.

    4. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Teaching one side only (irrespective of which one) is tantamount to indoctrination!

      The debate over the issues of life, fossils, origins etc is (STILL) vehemently debated. For this very reason the "facts" should be presented to the students, along with the two possible explanations that exist already in society, and let the students draw their own conclusions.

      And please, don't insult anyones intelligence by saying it's "all a fact" one way or the other. As long as it is debated, there is NO resolution. If there were, then the debate would cease.

      By way of example, if politics were being taught, but only the "Democratic" version was presented, wouldn't that be unacceptable? Shouldn't opposing ideologies be presented?

      I, for one was taught evolution in school. No creationism at all at the time, and later in life, did my own investigation, and came up with the opposite explanation as being more satisfying, (for me). I was NOT religious, at all, during my school years.

      1. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but there are no facts for creationism that can be presented to students. All you have is a bible and a variety of other scriptures with their versions of creationism.
        smile

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again you miss my main point (not unusual).

          If evolution were a PROVEN FACT, the debate would cease!

          To use topgunjagers example (above), the stork fairy tale is PROVEN to be so, and treated likewise.

          The same cannot be said about evolution (as a whole), least of all origins of life.

          1. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            creation doesn't belong in science class

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say that it did. I said ID.

              Watch these videos.. > >   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMRBccbINI  (1)
              There's a little more detail, here .. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKhl5eDlQE&NR=1  (2)

              Science itself is divided.

              1. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ID doesn't belong in science class either

                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So, ONLY evolution does.
                  So why is there so much opposition to new discoveries that don't fit the accepted model?
                  (as described in the two videos I posted links to).

                  The changes desired in the school were not "religion" motivated, but outdated information no longer relevant.

                  1. profile image0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    ID is a political movement, not science.  I wrote a hubs about the ugly politics of antievolutionists

          2. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The only debate is from believers like yourself who have no clue about evolution. smile

        2. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          PS.
          Proponents of ID don't necessarily use scripture to support anything.
          Mere observation of things produces explanation possibilities contrary to evolution.
          IE, the reality of what is, doesn't agree with an evolutionary explanation.

          1. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            they don't say god did it on purpose.  That's where the flying spagetti monster comes from

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Please don't bury your head in the sand.
              Not every single scientist who questions the validity of evolutions claims is a religionist.

              Why protect the Darwinian theory in the face of obvious contradictory results? Don't people have the right, (or the guts) to express doubts or contradictions? It would make you more hardened to your "beliefs" than us.

              After all, anything worth testing ought to stand up to scrutiny. If it doesn't match the expected results, say so. Don't force it into a mould it never will fit!

              In the, now famous words of Mr Mark Knowles, "Dear me"! hmm

              1. profile image0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'd been indoctrinated with creationism, been fed ID and studied evolution.  Sad thing is ,the IDists create so many lies about evolution - it's clear you don't even understand the basics.

                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That really answered me.
                  Typical evasive responses. Just like I have been getting for nearly three years.
                  It seems it's not just (ID proponents an religionists) that regurgitate things.

                  I doubt my arguments will change the world, but one thing I will say, with total convictions is, "time will tell". Time will tell all!

              2. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Aka even the Simpsons are ahead of you on Darwin. smile

                1. aka-dj profile image79
                  aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm glad to hear it.
                  Not bad for two dimensional caricatures.

                  Oh, hold on, they're not real. There must be someone behind them!
                  Oh I know, Evolutionists!

                  I'm cleverer than I thought. I figured that out all by myself! smile

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lisa is the one written as the evolutionist. You remember Lisa? The smart one. smile

          2. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol So, you have no clue what ID is saying AND what evolution is saying? lol

    5. Titen-Sxull profile image95
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would be okay with Creation stories in the classroom being made mandatory alongside evolution IF PhD Evolutionary biologists are also required to speak about the evidence for Evolution in Church services.

      All joking aside this is ridiculous, first off its a direct violation of the first amendment UNLESS you teach every single creation story (there are hundreds if not thousands).

      Secondly we can't be replacing solid scientific theories based on fossils, genetics, behavioral studies, anatomy and morphology with a supernatural explanation. Shall we also teach that lightning is created by the gods?

      Thirdly what evidence do Creationists bring to the table other than complaints that Evolution is wrong because it conflicts with their particular religious text? They propose that a supernatural being forming creatures using magic (an event for which they have no evidence) is more plausible than genetic variation over time (Evolution, which we have mountains of evidence for).

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How about the simplest argument of all.

        Slime-to-grass-to-plants-to-trees, by the millions in variation. Feasible? Yea, right!

        Virus/bacteria-to-amoeba(like organism-to-invertebrate-to-vertebrate-to-everything from tiny rodents to massive mammals, ad then-to-mankind. Feasible? Yeah, right! Everything on the planet moves towards simplicity, NOT complexity.
        Oh, except in Evolution, of course!
        Then there is the "fact" that not one fossil has ever been put forth as evidence fo all the failed attempts that the E process got "wrong"! It seems that at every possible stage in the progression "she" got it perfectly right!
        Don't we see a constant disappearance of species (extinction)?
        Why isn't E creating new species all around us? Oh, "she" went on extended leave! Of course!

        1. Titen-Sxull profile image95
          Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why isn't evolution creating new species all around us? Because every NEW species is just a NEWER form of an older species. We human beings didn't just show up as human beings, we evolved from earlier hominids. Evolution IS "creating" new species, with every generation our species deviates with the distant ancestors who migrated out from Africa. With something as slow to reproduce and as short-lived as humans we cannot observe our own species become something else in real time, however experiments done with species of fruit flies (which reproduce quicker) have confirmed speciation (the emergence of new species).

          And yes, given the billions of years timescales involved in Evolution it is perfectly feasible, we have a good record of how it worked (fossil record) although it is incomplete it gives us snapshot views of how life developed throughout time. What we see is single-cells at the lowest strata and more "complex" (might be the wrong word to use) lifeforms at the higher levels.

          And no everything does not move toward "simplicity". What you're doing is using a corrupted version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, namely that all closed/isolated systems move toward entropy/chaos and away from order/complexity but that only works with CLOSED systems. Earth receives new energy from the sun facilitating complex chemical reactions that allow life to exist.

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The sun does not add information to DNA!
            Besides, the sun is a part of the closed system, not outside of it.
            You answered nothing of value here.

            1. Titen-Sxull profile image95
              Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The sun does not add new information to DNA, mutations do. The chemical reactions necessary for life to thrive are reliant upon solar energy (except for, perhaps, the lifeforms living near hydrothermal vents).

              The sun itself is the source of energy that makes Earth an open system, it doesn't matter if the sun isn't receiving "new" energy of its own, it is putting out energy. It is well known that the sun will eventually run out of material to perform fusion and die out, so the sun IS a closed system heading for entropy, however this isn't likely to happen for another 3-5 billion years.

              Seriously these are basic scientific facts, I'm not sure what your problem is.

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "The sun does not add new information to DNA, mutations do."
                Where is there an example of this?
                Information is always lost, not gained!
                The original is always dominant.
                The mutant is always recessive! (loss).

                What's my problem?
                The dishonesty with the evidence, That's all.

                1. Titen-Sxull profile image95
                  Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCuYF4Nyr0

                  Feel free to do some research for yourself, but there's a good starter video ^

                2. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  mutations are not always destructive - that's another lie from ID politics

        2. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          no, everything does not move towards simplicity.  A baby developing from a few cells is an example of that

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "A baby developing from a few cells is an example of that"
            No it's not! Wrong kind of example.
            There is no information added. It's already preprogrammed into its DNA.

            My progression was from "slime-to-" well, I won't type it all again. There's is NO EVIDENCE of how information (can) be added. It's all hypothesis. Mere conjecture, to try and support a weak argument.

            What's your answer for the loss of species?
            What's your response to "failed mutations" being absent?

            How DID Mother Evolution manage to get virtually 1005 accuracy in transitioning from one to another, without loss? (Try and deal 4 aces every hand, and see how you go!)

            1. Titen-Sxull profile image95
              Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Species go extinct, it happens. If you seriously think that nothing has ever gone extinct before now than you are hopelessly uninformed. Here's a tip: Go do some research for yourself instead of demanding that people explain things to you and then dismissing their responses with arguments from incredulity.

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Go back and read my previous posts, before you jump in.
                Your answer does not reflect on what I actually said!

                1. Titen-Sxull profile image95
                  Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You posted:

                  "How DID Mother Evolution manage to get virtually 1005 accuracy in transitioning from one to another, without loss?"

                  From that I inferred that you mean that Evolution never failed (ie nothing ever went extinct). That might not be what you meant but regardless Evolution has hit a great many dead-ends, 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct. Obviously whatever managed to survive would pass on its genes, each time you pass on genes the next generation is a bit different, these variations accumulate over massive amounts of time until you get a new species.

                  As for the reason WHY species are going extinct now humans and our appetite for natural resources have a lot to do with it. In no way, however, are extinction events somehow new, they are quite common in Earth's history. There are both "explosions" of bio-diversity and reductions of it in the fossil record.

            2. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              there's massive loss in evolution - most species go extinct. 
              As for pre-programmed in DNA - you obviously don't realise that rice and the amoeba have a much bigger genome than humans, yet they are 'less complex'

    6. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Man is evolved in millions of years; so it is good that the children learn this and praise the Creator-God.

      Adam was a sign of the era when the Creator-God sent his Word for guidance of the humans; let the children learn it also.

    7. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In what class?

      In science class, evolution.

      In philosophy class, or comparative religion, creationism can and probably should be examined.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think it is a good suggestion.

    8. smcopywrite profile image81
      smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      this was not an issue 20 years ago and things worked out okay then. i believe that evolution was taught. if you want to teach your children religion, i honestly believe it should be taught at home.
      the reason i believe it should be taught at home is because i would like to be the one to teach my children and explain it in my own words.
      if you want to teach your children any religious matters, let it be done in the home.

  2. profile image0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    If you are speaking of American schools we should stick with evolution in public schools. Creationism is church doctrine. Separation of church and state applies.

    Private schools should be free to make their own decisions as to what to teach on the subject.

    1. TheBlondie profile image61
      TheBlondieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. Religion should be left for your own house or for religiously-inclined private schools. Evolution has literally been proven, and should be taught as it is a prominent part of science and biology- not because the teachers are trying to get their students to believe it. Non religious students should have the right to learn WHY they aren't religious.

    2. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree strongly. Very very strongly. Evolutionary theory is fact. Creationism is not.

      Only facts should be taught in schools.

      1. TheBlondie profile image61
        TheBlondieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's actually what we are saying... evolution is fact, and therefore should be taught in appropriate classes, like biology. Religon is not technically fact, and it should be left to the individual families to decide their opinion on it.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think it should be up to the child since religious parents often (not always) force their religion upon their child and refuse to let teachers teach them anything that they deem to be anti-religion.

          I went to a catholic school. I remember my science teacher asking me if I wanted to learn about evolution (she was not catholic, she must've lied on her cv to get the job) and I said yes. She looked a little disappointed that I wanted to learn about it, she wanted to teach it, but she wasn't allowed to.

          I should've had that choice not anyone else.

      2. profile image0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry. If someone pays good money to send their kid to a private school and they want a course in sponge bob economics taught, it's between them and the private school. Would I pay to have my kid's head filled with foolishness? Nope. But it's a free country.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          See my previous post. Its about what the kid wants. Not the parent.

          1. profile image0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I stand by my point. Since when did kids support themselves? You want to learn whatever you want at 12?  Pay for your own education.

            Good luck finding a parent who says ok to what a kid decides are the courses they'll take. Or get them to pay for Motessouri and then you both win.

            1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
              Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Noone chooses courses at school. Courses are for college or uni. School is government funded and private schools should not teach what the parent wants. What if the parent wants them to spend 6 years studying Sooty and sweep? You think thats ok because the parent pays for it?

              Think about the child. I knew what I wanted to learn at that age and so do most kids.

              1. profile image0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not saying some kids don't have odd parents, or that I wouldn't make different decisions from other people. But it's a slippery slope when you start thinking some people know better than others what is best for themselves or their own family.

                And I don't know where you live, but elective courses start pretty young here and there are at least two different programs for the kids, so their mandatory courses are not the same for all programs in the public schools.

                As to private schools; if they receive no government funds there are no standard of learning tests. They can teach whatever the heck they choose. Which does not mean they will graduate anyone with a high school diploma if it isn't an accredited school. But, again, if that is what a person chooses for their child I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. It is their right under the law.

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And that is what I disagree with. They should not have that right.

                  1. profile image0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Start a country. Declare yourself king. Or a god..your choice. But as long as this is a free country what you think is right on this issue is within your right, for you alone. And that's a fact.

          2. tritrain profile image76
            tritrainposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Kids don't have the right to choose, unless their parent grants it.

            1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
              Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am aware of that. I disagree with it.

  3. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Evolution is an established fact.

    Creationism is nothing more than an ideology completely unproven.

    Should these things be taught to children in schools? Evolution only, regardless whether or not, private or public schools.

    Creationism was only created to keep the god concept from disappearing.

    1. profile image60
      SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mr.Cagsil, Darwin stated that the cell,which at his time was the smallest object observable, and maybe at five to eight hundred magnignification was quite simple. Yet we know today with modern research,that the cell is not simple, but composed of dna that  contains at least 238 amino acids that are essential for replication of itself. We have also established the FACT that these amino acids must line up in perfect sequence instantly,not over billions of years in order to initiate the sequence. This only refers to a miniscule cell in any organism.You`re in my playground now friend.Read up .

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your playground? lol lol What a joke.

        1. profile image60
          SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I`ve spent 40 years in R&D. Prove your case if you can get your foot out of your mouth. Come on man, give me something substantial, prove your case. All you ever do is rant. Facts man Facts.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't need to prove SH!T considering it's already known to the rest of the world. Just because YOU refuse to admit it, isn't my fault or my problem.

            You need to grow up. Which is more than obvious.

            1. profile image60
              SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You, my friend are already dis-credited by your own silence.Glad to shut you down. Big talk,no do.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not too bright. Silence isn't the absence of anything.

                Evolution has been proven for quite a while. Again, YOU don't want to admit, then you choose to do so.

                1. profile image60
                  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Pathetic Cags,Go watch the ball game.Frivilous imput. What a waste. Always talking as THE BIG EXPERT  on all things and now you have nothing to say.Shame on you.

  4. aware profile image69
    awareposted 5 years ago

    both i think as theory . we need to   address this topic  not ignore it or leave it up to one sided idealism.  The division and   intolerance we see today is a direct result  of  doing nothing and letting  parents and churches   wash young minds

  5. aware profile image69
    awareposted 5 years ago

    conflict is counter productive

  6. aware profile image69
    awareposted 5 years ago

    this is exactly why it should be addressed in class
    civil ,moderated ,  grounded . otherwise its just a fight
    which leads to war we have that already

    1. profile image60
      SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I stated what I know and only a small ,insignificant portion.This has been my lifes research.Mr.Cagsil threw the first punch.

      1. profile image60
        SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And I am not here to be pro- creation. I am here to refute evolution with facts.
           These facts are modern, not antiquated,and up to date.

  7. aware profile image69
    awareposted 5 years ago

    hi nice to meet you  please don't take wrong, just a third party looking for constructive dialog  in a civil manner on a important subject . god if there is such a thing , i hope would not want to be fought over  . in my state when two party's fight and the cops come ,  both  combatants go to jail   despite who    punched first.

    1. profile image60
      SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Aware , you are correct and most gracious.Forgive my incivility.

  8. tritrain profile image76
    tritrainposted 5 years ago

    I don't have a problem with public schools teaching that there are various viewpoints.  I think it is healthy. 

    If someone wants their kids to be taught church doctrine then that someone can send their kids to a private, church-affiliated school.

    1. profile image60
      SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Tritrain, the problem is with allowing someone to believe something that has been proven to be false. Many years ago,we did not have the research facilities and modern methods we do now. Research has changed and so has positive,proof evidences.Raising our children to believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus is different,and we always make them understand at certain ages that those hopes and aspirations were myths.But to willfully teach our children a lie is inconcievable.

      1. tritrain profile image76
        tritrainposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I suppose alternative beliefs could/should be taught by the parents.

        However, I still feel that it is ok to teach that a fairly large portion of the world believes in things other than evolution.  Out of respect for those people, it should be shown to the students, as another belief.

        Just as I would not want my children to only one point of view, I think that creationism could at least have a day or week dedicated to it.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image85
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, we need to allow our children to learn the facts (all the facts)and decide for themselves what they believe.

          1. profile image60
            SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mr,Roberts, you may  impress them with fallacices in their youth, but do not TEACH them lies.

          2. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But, if you teach children facts, they have no reason to decide what to believe. smile

          3. profile image60
            SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But Tritrain,evolution has been proven to be false. Do you think that your family 1200 generations back were apes? Where are your distant relatives that haven`t evolved? Have they written you lately? Sometimes I act like a jackass but none of my past generations ,at least back to 1680 C.E. were indentified as apes.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Do you think that your family 1200 generations back were apes?"

              I have long said that the only people that I have ever heard make such a statement are theists desperate to "prove" their "case" against the known facts of evolution.  It is always used in a derisive manner, to ridicule the concept of evolution and convince the listener that it must be a silly and abhorrent idea, not to be tolerated by right thinking folk.

              Unfortunately, it has no basis in fact at all.  Neither the known facts nor the theories of evolution ever presented the idea that homo sapiens descended from apes; rather that the great apes (gorilla, chimpanzees, homo sapiens, etc.) were descended from a common ancestor.  Note that although we are biologically classified as a "great ape" (the taxonomic family of hominidae) we are not an ape in common language; that is reserved for gorillas and other members of the great ape classification.

              "none of my past generations ,at least back to 1680 C.E".  I don't imagine so; the most recent known common ancestor died out around 14 million years ago.  Once more your attempt at ridicule backfires and only shows an almost complete lack of knowledge of the general subject.

              For someone talking from your own backyard, you are remarkably ignorant of it's geography.

            2. dingdondingdon profile image60
              dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Nobody thinks we descended from apes except people who don't understand evolution. We descended from a common ancestor. This is fairly obvious just from looking at chimpanzees.

    2. topgunjager profile image61
      topgunjagerposted 5 years ago

      If were going to teach creation in classrooms, we might as well teach the stork theory about conceiving babies.

    3. Jonathan Janco profile image80
      Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

      Yes, obviously we were 'created'. By what and how remain a mystery however, so we really can't teach creationism since as a species we are so deliberately and collectively ignorant on the subject. The ancient Hebrews may have made a good guess despite the human error factor where they ignorantly leave  rape and child abuse out of the 10 commandments, but it's all just theory . . . not proveable and quite frankly not very relevant to today's world where the more we learn the more these ancient beliefs appear so appallingly primitive. Evolution, on the other hand, is a good tool for science class to explain how we became the dominant species that we are, but it does not explain the origins of the creation of life. I find the Big Bang to be absolute rubbish; just as much as I find the theory that God needed to impregnate a Palestinian teenager in order to express love to his followers to be absolute rubbish.

      1. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It would appear that you have little to no understanding of evolution based on your words here, hence you probably have little to no understanding of the Big Bang, too. smile

    4. Paul Wingert profile image77
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

      Every culture throughout history has some sort of creation story. And that's what it is, a story.

    5. profile image0
      Kiriuposted 5 years ago

      And the morden story is the story of evolution

      First and foremost, in science theories, there is no truth. Then get to differentiate;
      a) a fact and
      b) a theory
      evolution theory is still just that; a theory. By definition; a theory is based on ideas not facts. Since when do a scientific theory become a proven fact? Do you mean that no future evidence can falsify evolution? Since evidences are always subject to interpratations, those who say evolution theory is a proven fact have converted evolution into just another dogmatic religeon!

    6. dingdondingdon profile image60
      dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago

      Teach evolution as part of Biology classes. Teach creationism as part of Religious Studies classes, along with other creation myths. Problem solved.

    7. profile image0
      Kiriuposted 5 years ago

      Why don't we teach both of them as creation myths?

      1. dingdondingdon profile image60
        dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Because the term "creation myths" is used to apply to religious explanations for the creation of the universe. The theory of evolution is not connected to religion.

      2. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is no harm in teaching the reality.

    8. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago

      What a ridiculous thread!   Creationism is a cobbled together fabric of bu!!sh!t with no scientific credence or credible support - trying to argue it up to the status of a sound scientific theory well supported with evidence is symptomatic of a dying culture.

    9. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

      Atheists did not cause evolution to start

      1. dingdondingdon profile image60
        dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nobody caused evolution to start. It's not as if there's a big button you can press. Do you understand how evolution works?

        1. profile image68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          man got evolved; that is OK with me

      2. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What a ridiculous thing to say. Have you stooped so low in your propagandist arsenal as to come up with an attack on atheists that is so weak and lame as to be utterly silly? lol

    10. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

      Shows inner of the atheists; I don't mind; it exposes them

    11. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago

      In Australia we used to have "Religious Instruction" which was voluntary in our government run schools. May kids saw it as an hour off. smile

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Teach them how to write their own name PLEASE! Is that too much to ask?!

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ?? Was that comment meant for me Klara?

          1. profile image0
            klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No. It was meant for the many children that get to 12th grade and can't even speak. Sorry Earnest... I didn't mean it as a reply.

            How are you by the way?

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Klara! (I know I'm 12 hours late!) I am exceptionally happy and well at this time, and excited to be spending the day playing mini-golf with the kids later in the day. smile

              1. profile image0
                klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Good to hear that! no worries about time delay... it's totally cool. smile

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey Klara! We are both awake at the same time. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm outta here! Heading out to work out a bit. smile It's a gorgeous day! Hope you are enjoying good weather too!

                    1. earnestshub profile image88
                      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Good yes, raining lightly at 8.30am. Enjoy! smile

    12. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

      Children should be told that man got evolved by the commandment of the Creator-God in million of years. Advent of Adam and Eve denoted the epoch making event when man attained the stage of Direct Converse with the Creator-God.

      Of course it was the Creator-God who taught man to speak and write.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image77
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't forget to throw in the plush garden and talking snake.

        1. Druid Dude profile image59
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          and don't forget the spittin' contest. I like the spittin' contest!

        2. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There was no talking snake. It's a metaphor, the yetzer hara, the evil inclination within. Eve was having an inner conversation along the lines of "Should I...? shouldn't I...? should I....? Oh what the heck, what harm can it do?"

          Think about it rationally. If you saw a talking snake you would soil your trousers. smile

      2. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
    13. Jaydeus profile image78
      Jaydeusposted 5 years ago

      School sciences are for learning FACTS based on empirical hard evidence that is tangible and testable.  No religion can offer up any proof of other than thousand-year old pieces of papyrus and tablets, most only half intelligible. 
      Religion should be examined only in a philosophical standpoint regarding past issues on world wars and genocides and the impacts said religions have made against the advancement of our species, and again only in psychology departments as examples of delusions and psychosis.
      Nothing hinders our world more than holding on to the past.
      Once we do away with childish things, we can all be adults in our journey into the future.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Very well put. Religion has proved to be very useful to psychology, although without religion we would not have needed as many psychiatrists and psychologists as we would have moved a helluva lot faster in brain knowledge without the religious fear response to the lizard brain.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What you perhpas convieniently forget ernest that religious faith has formed the basis of our laws and legal systems that hold society together. Without religion, all would be chaos I'll wager.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Religion is not the basis that morals were drawn from. smile Religious "faith" has to do with a misunderstanding of the fear of death response from the lizard brain, nothing to do with morals now or then.

            People do good and bad things, we know a lot about how that works, and have for the last 50 years or more.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Even though we may have a better understanding of people doing good and bad things, where are you going to base your definition of what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour in society?

              For all its fault, religion has given us the basis of our legal systems that keep society in cohesion.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have always used logic myself. Certain behaviors bring about good things, others cause bad things. smile
                I do not need religion to know the difference and nor do my children.

                1. profile image0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm afraid I disagree with you, on some levels. There are those who have shown a strong need for a belief in judgement from another plane.

                  Read some of the posts from fundamentalists. The things they say we would be doing without the fear of retribution shows the things they themselves are capable of doing. You, or I, would never consider such behavior, but they apparently would. I've always said wild people need religion. Liberal religious thinkers know this and this is why they believe religion is necessary for some.

              2. profile image68
                paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps the atheists don't want cohesion in the society; they want to create disorder, I think.

                1. profile image0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would disagree. I think maybe the atheists have enough respect for the ability of a human to make intelligent choices without thinking the only way to do it is by 'divine' guidance.

                  They should probably be labeled forward thinkers. Maybe they are just ahead of their time. Utopian dreamers of a moment in history when society will evolve to the point where it will be able to find some peace. smile

     
    working