Question of the Day: Should Creationism and Intelligent Design be taught in the science classroom alongside the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?
Gravity is not a theory in so long. Proven
Evolution is a theory and should be taught as a theory. It is not a fact until proven so.
Gravity is also a theory and so is Germ Theory. Your point is invalid.
Gravity is considered a law.
A scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works...
Segments of gravity (the fact gravity exists) may be considered a law, but other segments (like how gravity works and the mechanism used) are considered a scientific theory. What's the difference? One is based on observation of the evidence which leads us to the best conclusion and the other is based on math that leads us to the best conclusion. At least that's how it was explained to me. Either way evolution has tons of evidence backing it and denying that is equivalent to challenging established theories like gravity.
Evolution should be taught in science class. Creationism could be taught as a part of a Creative Writing class focused on the genre of Fantasy.
Private sure, public-separation of church and state, only teach science
Evolution should not be taught as settled science, because it's not...
Please be a troll
Afraid of the truth?
Not the truth just fools who don't believe it
Believe? Got to have lots of faith to believe in a theory that has so many holes in it..
Got to have even more faith to believer a theory that has no evidence backing it whatsoever
The holes in the theory of evolution are insignificant
One "insignificant" hole is explaining how life began. Another might be how life reproduced before DNA programming. Or if not, why did DNA programming for specific life forms come into existence without having a life form source containing that programming. Kind of a chicken and egg thing. There are a few holes out there. Evolutionists' approach seems to assume the theory is true and explain away any unknowns with "we just don't know that yet". Lots of faith involved...
"One "insignificant" hole is explaining how life began."
Life BEGINNING has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is how life developed and where humans came from. Panspermia and abiogenesis deal with your question.
"Another might be how life reproduced before DNA programming. Or if not, why did DNA programming for specific life forms come into existence without having a life form source containing that programming."
DNA actually may have existed before life itself did. You throw around "programming" without proving there's a programmer. If there was a programmer why are humans full of design flaws?
"Kind of a chicken and egg thing. There are a few holes out there."
Egg came first.
"Evolutionists' approach seems to assume the theory is true and explain away any unknowns with "we just don't know that yet". Lots of faith"
Not really. DNA proves humans and other species have a common ancestor and to state "common designer" you'd be doing what you say evolutionists do.
You are doing the same thing, assuming an unproven theory is true...
No I'm not. We can observe micro evolution in the lab, and we can observe macro evolution over time in history. We have fossils, fossils of missing links, similar DNA that goes along with how the fossils say we likely evolved, and it's logical to assume that micro evolution leads to macro evolution if given enough time, which is what we have.
This is different from your claims in which:
-You can't prove God's existence
-You can't prove he created
-You can't suggest how he created, what mechanism he used
-A Garden of Eden
-A list of "types of animals" that modern life micro evolved from
-A global flood
And I could go on.
Uh no. Unless you want to teach cooking classes in science or sewing.
Creationism and intelligent design are not science. They are fantasy with zero fact behind them. Think Mothergoose.
Not in the science room as it has no basis in science. It's not a scientific theory. It should be taught in a world religions course.
Teaching religion in a biology class would be pretty silly.
Simple. Evolution is science. Creationism and Intelligent Design is religious dogma, not science.
Theory of Evolution, because things supported by evidence deserve merit.
No. Because neither creationism or "intelligent" design has anything at all to do with science.
Intelligent design should be taught in history, not science
It should be taught as an opinion, just like religion is taught in most public schools.
Isn't religion that is taught in school historical not perceptual?
Which religion would the school teach . . . ?
I could see a religious studies course where you learn about religions, but not if they are right or wrong just a study of beliefs. This could only be done though if there was a unbiased teacher. More or less, here is what x religion believes in, here is what y believes in
Creationism should not be taught in public schools. Church and parents are responsible for teaching it.
Students should be exposed to a variety of theories, not just the most popular and widely believed, they should have access to the tools necessary to draw their own conclusions
This is actually how my high school biology teacher presented it. I recall we had to have an understanding of both but we were allowed to draw our own conclusions via a research paper of our choosing. It worked fine and we left with knowledge of both.
Did you go to public school, Kamden? If so, where?
And I'm also interested in your tag line. As you probably know, SPLC is based in Montgomery, AL. I know someon that used to handle their mass mailings, and told some doozies about them! Lol
Yes I went to a public school in Northern Indiana, at a school designated towards STEM education and group-project based learning.
The SPLC has designated ethnic Kekistanis as a "white-supremacist" hate group. We are not. White supremacists hate US in-fact.
Creationism isn't a scientific theory. It has no basis in science. I was taught both in school. The dogma was taught in religion class and the scientific theory was taught in science class.
Though it's still a a belief on how humanity came to be, any opposing theories that have a large supporting should be taught as well, so that kids can have knowledge of all the different theories, because I dont know what school you went to, but mine didn't go much into depth about Creationism in history class
I had to look up Kekistani. Is that some kind of video game?!
I'm assuming those that are saying that creationism should not be taught don't remember when it was ALL that was taught! Lol
I don't want to get very heavily into detail about the high school I went to. I think it's important to note though that much of our learning was independent. We were encouraged to read the necessary state-approved curriculum and further our research on our own. On the internet, by ourselves, within the frame of a project.
The militancy can chill, I did my project on Darwin.
I don't think dogma has any place in a science class period. That's a theology course it has no business being taught in a science class.
Modern creationists are starting to provide some evidence or theories that help explain how it may have happened scientifically, creationism can also be explained through science, just like alot of other religious ideas, therefore I think it deserves to be taught as well. Thats just my belief though, Im not even christian
If you want alternative hypotheses taught in class, why not also teach that the world is 2,000 years old and reincarnation, Mormon beliefs about the Universe, and Scientologist beliefs about the origin of life in schools as well?
In my own opinion, I'd have preferred he taught evolution theory. But in the context of how my PUBLIC school worked, students were meant to be highly independent critical thinkers. I did have the opportunity to debate the same topic earlier on in my freshman year and I debated in favor of teaching evolution, but that was in a separate civics class. In hindsight, I acted very militantly and disrespectful to my peers across the aisle during said debate and I wish I could take it back. So that is my official position if it pleases you so much.
But should alternatives to Evolution and Creationism be taught if Creationism is taught alongside Evolution?
I don't know of any other alternatives so therefore perhaps so.
I am not of the opinion that creationism should have been presented in the context of a biology class. So really I can't be a spokesperson for it. I was sharing my own anecdote.
In Mormon Mythology they believe that humans will eventually become gods and repopulate new planets and reseed that planet (like Genesis 1-2). They believe before God became God, he came from another planet and there was a God for that planet. The cycle never ends.
In Scientology they believe humans were seeded on earth by alien gods (sorry if I butcher this explanation lmao) and there was a galactic war going on while this happened.
Mormonism would be an alternative explanation against Traditional Christian Creationism and the Big Bang; while Scientology would be an alternate explanation against Creationism (Hamm's Orchard of Life) and Evolution.
For any that believe that evolution is the absolute truth, I suggest that you look up Evolution in Wiki and count the number of times the word "theory" is mentioned.
I've never heard any such thing about Mormons and their beliefs, Scenario, so I'm tagging in someone that grew up Mormon.
@Kimbobee is this true?
I've copied and pasted what ScenarioNations said, so it's easier for you to find, @Kimbobee:
"In Mormon Mythology they believe that humans will eventually become gods and repopulate new planets and reseed that planet (like Genesis 1-2). They believe before God became God, he came from another planet and there was a God for that planet. The cycle never ends."
And we're discussing whether Creation should be presented in schools, in addition to the Theory of Evolution.
I don't want to get into a debate about this, but "theory" as you understand it in layman's terms is not the same as it is in science terminology.
That is all true about Mormon beliefs.
Personally, I think only evolution should be taught in science classes. That's even how my biology class at BYU was taught. We did talk about how our religious beliefs can coexist with evolution, but there was no question about evolution not being real.
Also, the word "theory" has a different meaning in a scientific context than in everyday use.
Thanks, Kamden and Kimbobee. I had NO CLUE that Mormons believe they can become gods. That's definitely not a part of doctrine of any Christian denomination that I know of! Lol
Yeah...Mormons have a lot of extra doctrine piled on top of their "normal Christian" beliefs. Guess that's what happens when you have 4 books of scripture, rather than just the Bible.
Thanks, Kim! That does explain it. So let me ask you one last question. Are you saying that Mormons believe in evolution instead of creation? Thanks!
The church has "no official position on evolution."
Evolution is taught in Biology at BYU because it is accepted science and BYU is an educational institution. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Which isn't to say that the church doesn't believe creationism (or more likely, in some form of intelligent design) but it has no place in a science class.
This is required reading in Biology classes at BYU (note that this is BYU's stance, not the church's):
I'm sorry, Kim. I'm having a hard time concentrating today, so can't make sense of a heavy document, so I just need a simple answer from you, and I'll trust that you know what you're talking about. I don't need an article as proof! Lol
So are you saying that the Mormon church believes in creationism, doesn't take a stance on evolution, but that the school teaches evolution, but not creationism?
The church doesn't take an official stance on evolution. It still believes in the creation account presented in Genesis. This allows for the two to coexist.
The school only teaches evolution in Biology class because creation is not a scientific theory. However, that doesn't mean the creation isn't taught in religion classes at BYU. Or that religious beliefs aren't discussed within the context of evolution in the Biology class.
Does that make sense? Really the only difference is that BYU teaches evolution as "scientific fact" while the church, as a whole, holds no official position.
Thanks! Yes, that was very understandable!
Because things that actually have evidence deserve to be taught in science class. Creationism is more suited towards a philosophy based class