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

Jump to Last Post 1-20 of 20 discussions (128 posts)

59
TheBlondieposted 13 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?
reply report
1. 57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 13 years agoin 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.
  
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you a million, billion, babillion percent.
  reply report
2. 59
  Apostle Jackposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
3. 75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
4. 66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  creation doesn't belong in science class
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ID doesn't belong in science class either
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ID is a political movement, not science. I wrote a hubs about the ugly politics of antievolutionists
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The only debate is from believers like yourself who have no clue about evolution.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  they don't say god did it on purpose. That's where the flying spagetti monster comes from
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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"!
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Aka even the Simpsons are ahead of you on Darwin.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lisa is the one written as the evolutionist. You remember Lisa? The smart one.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, you have no clue what ID is saying AND what evolution is saying?
  reply report
5. 71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin 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).
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin 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 ^
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  mutations are not always destructive - that's another lie from ID politics
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no, everything does not move towards simplicity. A baby developing from a few cells is an example of that
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin 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!)
  reply report
  71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  66
  aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Go back and read my previous posts, before you jump in.
  Your answer does not reflect on what I actually said!
  reply report
  71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin 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'
  reply report
6. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
7. 71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In what class?
  
  In science class, evolution.
  
  In philosophy class, or comparative religion, creationism can and probably should be examined.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think it is a good suggestion.
  reply report
8. 59
  smcopywriteposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
0
just_curiousposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 59
  TheBlondieposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree strongly. Very very strongly. Evolutionary theory is fact. Creationism is not.
  
  Only facts should be taught in schools.
  reply report
  59
  TheBlondieposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  See my previous post. Its about what the kid wants. Not the parent.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And that is what I disagree with. They should not have that right.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe the problem lies with bad parents forcing their nonsense on their kids.
  
  But my idea that only facts should be taught in schools is a valid one that should be adressed. I think it is a key topic in many western countries right now.
  
  Maybe america is lagging behind somewhat?
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sue us. Freedom of thought is pretty big in this country. We've had plenty of people try to shove their idea of what is right around. We've grown very litigious in support of our freedoms; because we take them quite seriously. We like diversity.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you dont think only facts should be taught in schools? You think it is ok for kids of 11 years old to be taught that there is a teapot floating around mars and that whales can speak spanish?
  
  You think it is a good thing that fundamentalist muslims can send their kids to mosques that teach them it is good to be a suicide bomber? You think that "freedom of thought" implies that any nonsense can be taught in any school?
  
  You can think whatever you want. That has nothing to do with what is taught in schools.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't like the thought of that anymore than you do. But if you start shoving opinions around with legislation it gets sticky. Freedom is freedom is freedom. You can't work around that fact with 'knowing what's best for other people'.
  
  You have to give others the benefit of the doubt to know what is best for them. Whether you agee with them or not.
  report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Teaching FACTS has nothing to do with opinions. Teaching religion is paramount to forcing opinions on kids.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Arghh. I wholeheartedly agree. But that's my opinion. I share it quite frequently, but I don't have the authority to force others to take it as gospel. They have the right to make their own decisions as to what is right.
  
  If it makes you feel any better, I think I was responsible for the dismantling of one little church school here in my community before it got off the ground good. One of the 'teachers' asked me to explain some things to her so she'd understand them enough to teach the kids. I spent the entire time explaining to her how ill equipped she was for the task. That 'school' closed shortly thereafter and the kids were sent to public schools.
  
  So, communication made a difference. I didn't belittle her, I gently pointed out the obvious. People can be taught, you simply have to help them see the logic of your point, not force it on them.
  report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree of course. I just think that when it comes to kids, we cant take chances on the parents.
  
  Heck, pedofilia being wrong is just an opinion. Is that an opinion we should not force on parents?
  
  I think there are circumstances where we need to establish a standard and what we teach in schools should be one of those since kids can easily be brainwashed, and that is very harmful.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's a silly argument. Pedophilia is illegal.
  
  The world would be a sad place of we were all raised the same. We have several atheists here on Hub Pages who were raised in Pentecostal environments. We have Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. These are fundamental faiths with fundamental teachings.
  
  They function in society. They pay their bills and are not a burden on society. As long as they meet those prerequisites, and stay within our laws, they can do as they please; just as I can. When their kids grow up, they can make their own decisions. The learning process doesn't end at eighteen.
  report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea what you are going on about I really dont. Of course pedofilia is illegal. Isnt that forcing an opinion on others who think it is ok?
  
  Teaching kids unfounded beliefs as facts should also be illegal since it is brainwashing.
  
  Why should every kid be brought up the same if there is no religion being taught as fact? How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
  
  All facts are the same. Thats just a fact. Every kid on the planet learns that 2+2=4 and why shouldnt they? It is fact.
  
  What a kid is taught has nothing to do with how a kid is brought up. You can teach your kid drums, computer engineering or how to be a pilot if you want but teaching them that noahs ark actually happened or mohammed rode a horse to heaven as fact is just plain wrong and should not be allowed.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you didn't want me to comment on pedophilia, you shouldn't have brought it up as an argument.
  
  And you show a limited understanding of the concept of freedom. Where are you from? People have a right to raise their children in line with their conscience. They have the right to teach them, in line with their conscience. Whatever beef you have with religion, there are a hundred other things that a thousand other people have beefs with. And probably for valid reasons. If you get to insist on your desire being acted on; where does it end?
  
  You can shove your opinion around, but you can't shove people. Not in a free society.
  
  This is the primary problem I see with the atheist argument. There is no middle ground. There is no understanding of freedom of thought. It is as intractable as the fundamentalists.
  
  This is a diverse society and will remain such, until our democracy is ended. I don't think any more of religion than you do, but neither of us has the right to force others to live by our convictions.
  report
  72
  tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Kids don't have the right to choose, unless their parent grants it.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am aware of that. I disagree with it.
  reply report
68
Cagsilposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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 .
  reply report
  68
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your playground? What a joke.
  reply report
  52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  68
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You, my friend are already dis-credited by your own silence.Glad to shut you down. Big talk,no do.
  reply report
  68
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
65
awareposted 13 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
reply report
65
awareposted 13 years ago
conflict is counter productive
reply report
65
awareposted 13 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
reply report
1. 52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
65
awareposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Aware , you are correct and most gracious.Forgive my incivility.
  reply report
72
tritrainposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  72
  tritrainposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mr,Roberts, you may impress them with fallacices in their youth, but do not TEACH them lies.
  reply report
  57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But, if you teach children facts, they have no reason to decide what to believe.
  reply report
  52
  SEEKER OF TRUTH57posted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
59
topgunjagerposted 13 years ago
If were going to teach creation in classrooms, we might as well teach the stork theory about conceiving babies.
reply report
60
Jonathan Jancoposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
60
Paul Wingertposted 13 years ago
Every culture throughout history has some sort of creation story. And that's what it is, a story.
reply report
0
Kiriuposted 13 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!
reply report
61
dingdondingdonposted 13 years ago
Teach evolution as part of Biology classes. Teach creationism as part of Religious Studies classes, along with other creation myths. Problem solved.
reply report
0
Kiriuposted 13 years ago
Why don't we teach both of them as creation myths?
reply report
1. 61
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is no harm in teaching the reality.
  reply report
60
recommend1posted 13 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.
reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Atheists did not cause evolution to start
reply report
1. 61
  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  man got evolved; that is OK with me
  reply report
2. 57
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Shows inner of the atheists; I don't mind; it exposes them
reply report
73
earnestshubposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 0
  klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Teach them how to write their own name PLEASE! Is that too much to ask?!
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ?? Was that comment meant for me Klara?
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 13 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good to hear that! no worries about time delay... it's totally cool.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Klara! We are both awake at the same time.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm outta here! Heading out to work out a bit. It's a gorgeous day! Hope you are enjoying good weather too!
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good yes, raining lightly at 8.30am. Enjoy!
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 60
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't forget to throw in the plush garden and talking snake.
  reply report
  61
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and don't forget the spittin' contest. I like the spittin' contest!
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
73
Jaydeusposted 13 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.
reply report
1. 73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Religion is not the basis that morals were drawn from. 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.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have always used logic myself. Certain behaviors bring about good things, others cause bad things.
  I do not need religion to know the difference and nor do my children.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps the atheists don't want cohesion in the society; they want to create disorder, I think.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin 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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

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

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

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

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies