Creationism in Science Classes
- By Simple Politiks
- 30 August, 2012
- 47 Comments
Author’s Note
I apologize if it seems as if I have been attacking religion lately. I usually come up with topics off of the top of my head or with some inspiration from current events, which means Religion and Politics and this post happened to be published very close together by chance. It is very difficult to be objective with everyday issues, but it is even more difficult to remain objective with any issue that is intertwined with religion or any type of God. I try my best, though. People should know that I’m not trying to disprove religion or devalue its teachings in my posts. Even if I completely disagreed with religion I would never attempt something so rash and inciting. I just inject my opinion into whatever debate I see. I always strive to give the opposing belief a satisfactory amount of credit (if the rationale merits any credit – some things don’t because they’re so outrageous) before ending my posts so my readers have more than “I don’t believe in A because B is STUPID”. Unfortunately, we see that rationale all too often from both sides of the political spectrum. So always keep this in mind when reading my posts. You may not agree with me completely, but maybe you can at least understand my reasoning and how I came to my conclusions.
Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has caused a bit of controversy with a recent video of his view on creationism being taught to children. I believe Bill Nye was referring to creationism being taught in schools, so he wasn’t attacking religion itself. Or at least didn’t intend to… There’s a fine line there, some would say no line, but assuming there is one he most likely crossed it. However, I don’t really care about what he said. I’m just interested in one question…
Do you think Creationism should be taught in science courses?
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.
- Taken from Wikipedia
And what good is a definition of Creationism without a description of Evolution?
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organismsand molecules such as DNA and proteins.
Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.
- Taken from Wikipedia
Although there are some creationists that believe in evolution as just another part of God’s design, many are opposed to the belief (I think… Correct me if I’m wrong). That is why I also provided a description of evolution.
So what do I think about this debate? Well, in my opinion the entire debate is pretty much a no-brainer. It basically comes down to common sense. Creationism shouldn’t be taught in a science class because, to put it simply, it just isn’t science. If you disagree with me then just look at the definition of science (once again provided by Wikipedia):
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
How can you possibly say that anything about creationism can be systematically tested? How can we perform experiments to determine if God exists? Or that the universe was created only 6,000 – 10,000 years ago when all of the scientific evidence points to billions of years? It just doesn’t make sense in a scientific classroom, right? I completely understand why creationists want that discussion in the classroom; they probably feel like the omission of that subject matter is essentially the school’s way of saying: “Your religion is wrong, evolution is right, there is no God.” It probably frightens religious parents because they feel like the school is somehow brainwashing their kids. But everyone has to realize that just isn’t the case. The scientific classroom is solely for the subject matter that we can physically prove. It doesn’t deal with the spiritual aspect of life/creation in the slightest. You are literally comparing apples to oranges when you observe science and creationism/God.
Again… I think religion is great, I think you can believe in creationism if you want to, but I don’t think you can force a science class to teach it. Pretty simple. I’d go as far to say it is just common sense.
Here’s a video of a very brief debate I found enjoyable. You’ll quickly observe the creationist’s faulty logic as the video progresses.
Copyright © 2013
“The scientific classroom is solely for the subject matter that we can physically prove. It doesn’t deal with the spiritual aspect of life/creation in the slightest. You are literally comparing apples to oranges when you observe science and creationism/God.”
While I agree with you, you have to realize that if the science is contradicting the creation story, then it is actually stepping on religion’s toes. Creationists are claiming that our world came about in a particular way, and science disputes that. Unless one enjoys cognitive dissonance, you can’t simultaneously hold that evolution is true, and that the Genesis account is literal.
I think it’s another example of how a politicized education system causes unnecessary ruckus.
Yeah that’s true. But science is about what we can observe in the physical world. Evolution is the theory that best supports the life we see on Earth today. Until something can actually completely disprove it, science is obligated to teach it. Even if a child is religious. This subject matter is bound to cause controversy, there’s no doubt about that, but the answer is not teach creationism. Those discussions are for a philosophy class, not science. Science needs something physical to observe.
Understand, I’m not advocating teaching Intelligent Design as science-for the record, I do believe in evolution- but it will always be contentious as long as there are religious believers, and dismissing their concerns won’t help matters.
Within the boundary of a public education system, this may be an issue where believers simply have to put up with it, but the point I’m trying to make is that the reason we even have to have this conversation is because there isn’t very much choice or consumer input in public education. Although, I suppose with the home school movement more and more believers will opt for that instead.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I definitely agree with you about education.
Interesting article, I found the end of the video you provided also particularly interesting. If you watch it again the presenter effectively commits the pro-creationist to the teaching of pretty much ANY view which disagrees with standard scientific thought. If we were to open the floodgates to teaching creationism by what right would we then be able to refuse the teaching of not only the rest of the bible but many of other religions, cults and belief systems. Such an event would likely be highly impractical, if not entirely undesirable.
The main reason I ‘replied’ to this particular post is because of your following quote though: ‘but the answer is not teach creationism. Those discussions are for a philosophy class, not science’. Sorry, but the misuse of the word Philosophy in a context like this is a pet hate of mine. Philosophy is more systematic then science, creationism is a discussion for theology classes, not Philosophy.
Creation depends on the supernatural premise that anything is possible with God. Because anything is possible…it pretty much shuts the door on testing anything because it would be possible that test results were not as they seem. Lets just study science in the classrooms with all of its limits and keep the supernatural to be investigated in another forum.
I’m just wondering that if everything came from nothing and nothing created everything; then where did all that information in the DNA come from? Who informs? To say there is no God is like me telling my son that his LEGO set directions just appeared on their own with no outside intervention.
As a born-again Christian I appreciate your respectful approach to these topics. I hold a different world view than you but I am happy that we have freedom of speech. Speak on! I don’t feel attacked. But I do choose to agree to disagree. Thanks for engaging posts!
~ Wendy
I hold a similar belief. I do believe that something supernatural exists… I just don’t know what that supernatural thing made or what it even is. I also believe in an afterlife, but I don’t know what to expect from that either since I don’t believe in any specific religion at the moment. I just hope that being a good and principled person in my life will be enough to have a happy afterlife, if such a thing truly does exist.
Maybe one day I’ll devote myself to truly learning all of main scientific theories over the course of my life. It would be nice to understand the physics behind this new “God particle” and how that actually allows something to literally come from nothing… But for now I just can’t comprehend that level of physics.
And thank you for your compliments! It’s always a pleasure to respond to your comments
Actually, the Higg boson isn’t so much something created from nothing. The so-called “God particle” is (altho’ still hypothetical at this time) what gives other particles mass as opposed to photons which are particles without mass.
Good luck on the learning! You might want to start with differential equations.
Ah, I see! Just proves how ignorant I am in this subject! Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks! I’ve taken up to Calculus 2. I believe that means multi-variable is next along with differential equations if I decide to learn more. It will probably happen eventually.
Chemistry is a wonderful thing. Life (and all the universe for that matter) is the result of a series of elegant chemical reactions that begin at the quantum level.
Unfortunately, your logic fails regarding the LEGO directions, as there was outside intervention in the form of human ingenuity and creativity.
I noticed that you used the word “begin”. ~ Wendy
I agree with what most have already said here. Creationism is not science; it’s religion. There should be room for both in the class room.
It especially annoys me when atheists aggressively attack religion in a way that reeks of tribalism while at the same time presenting themselves as the voice of reason. This blogger has a good post about that: http://helian.net/blog/2012/08/26/morality/there-are-atheists-and-then-there-are-atheists/
Hello, it’s me again. In this post you said, “Again . . . I think religion is great.” That fits into your last post how?
Hey, just replied to your last comment. Check it out: http://simple-politiks.com/2012/08/22/religion-and-politics/
One of the biggest problems is the Religious Right’s attempt to equate the “theory” of creationism (or intelligent design) with the Theory of Evolution. Theory (as used by Darwin and science in general) is a statement which has been shown to be true by rigorous scientific investigation.
However, due to the evolution of the living language of English, theory has taken on a new definition (originally in jest) in which it is equivalent to hypothesis.
The Theory of Evolution is a Theory by the first definition and has been proven to be fact.
The “Theory” of Creationism is a theory by the 2nd definition and a hypothesis that, by its very nature, cannot be tested.
We need to call out attempts to equate Creationism with Evolution through the misuse of semantics. Additionally, we need to stop teaching our student by rote imitation and get back to teaching them critical thinking.
As a Christian I do believe in micro-evolution. I just don’t subscribe to macro-evolution. A fruit fly is still a fruit fly no matter how many experiments are done on it. Same with the birds on the Galapagos Islands. Their beaks adapted to their food supply but they were still birds.
I homeschool for many reasons. One being that I want to teach my kids to be critical but respectful of what they hear. A jury can be divided on the same evidence presented to them. How does that happen? We all tend to have a bent because of our beliefs. Fossils are evidence of the past and yet they, too, can be used to support differing views.
Count me as agreeing to disagree with gentleness & respect ~ Wendy
My response to people who argue that a scientific theory is, to some extent, a matter of opinion or belief is this: Let’s you and I take a trip to the edge of the roof of a building. Then I’d like you to take several steps off the edge, turn around, and then tell me about the “theory” of gravity.
Nice. Love that.
Richard Dawkins is one of the biggest advocates for getting Creationism tossed out of education. I couldn’t agree with him more. There is no place in school for theocracy.
I’d be perfectly fine with a religious study class or some branch of philosophy. Just not in science, you know?
I learned in philosophy class that religion is the most simplified way of controlling the masses. Creationism appeals to those with little curiosity and much ambition since they could take advantage of those with no ambition and even less inteligence. I dislike religion being anywhere near schools. Religious school’s students are horrible to try and have a descent fact filled and rational argument with. And schools shouldn’t teach just one side of the coin either… that is a place for wide teachings and allow the kids to make up their minds. Simple really.
Dawkins wants take human nature out of humanity.
I agree that atheists are annoying from time to time (especially with unwanted attacks)… but saying that Dawkins wants to take human nature out of humanity is odd. After studying criminology for years now, removing human nature from humans seems like a good idea (human nature is nature’s old instincts on us). Our nature took us into a path of blood/power thirst followed by mass control through ignorance, greed and more bloodshed for both. I believe in God, I dislike religions, my views are my own and I side with Dawkins.
Unlike creationism, science is based on testable hypotheses and theories. We have Lucy’s bones to study, along with the whole anthropologic record so far. It’s clear that evolution has taken place in humans. We have dinosaur bones, which don’t exist in the Bible. Again, evidence exists that the Bible’s version of creation is leaving something out, so we can’t rely on it as the end all, be all of facts. On top of that, we live in a country where we’re free to believe or not in any religion we so choose. If you really don’t want your children to learn science, that’s a choice, but it’s not the choice you should be making for all the children who go to public schools. I, for one, enjoy all the scientific advancements that have been made in the last 100 years. Computers are nice, but my very favorite at the moment(since it’s well over 100 degrees here) is my air conditioner. I’d prefer to live in a world where we don’t waste time in science class teaching creationism. You can learn all the creation mythology you want in church, let’s leave science class for learning what’s real, how things work, and how to use the scientific method to further our knowledge of the world.
The point of religion [ALL RELIGION] is to deny that death (for humans only) is real. It is a conceit born out of the inability to picture a universe without YOU in it. Without the ability to pretend that YOU are far more important, too important, to expire and decompose like the rest of the life-forms that evolved on this planet the shear terror of death would be paralyzing for most. So, we pretend that the universe runs on magic and if we follow a particular set of rules we are exempt from the obvious reality of death. It’s a therapeutic form of self hypnosis. A self-serving corruption of reality.
Currently, it is interesting to note, or, at least contemplate why Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. The answer is simple. Islam does a much better job of denying death through self-hypnosis than Christianity does. Fundamentalist Christians, in spite of their claims to being “saved” and “guaranteed” life everlasting can be counted upon to demand every scientific intervention possible to STAY ALIVE! To “avoid” going to the “Better Place” at all costs. It’s the Muslims who strap bombs on themselves and their children.
Is it cold for me to mock these people and all those who would dissociate themselves from a painful reality through the culturally sanctioned madness we know as religion? I suppose it is. Is it wrong for me to notice that this little madness, soothing as it surely is for the individual, is the primary tool of the unscrupulous monsters who use it to accumulate wealth, power and the ability to dictate to us all who God is displeased with and who the world would be better off without? I don’t think so. I rather think that morphine is helpful when we experience acute pain, but, ruinous as a steady diet. As a consequence I must despise those who peddle it to children for profit in the hope of addicting them for life. I must condemn all those, regardless of their own addictions, who would teach children that they were created imperfect, but, demanded to BE perfect by a God who DEMANDS, on pain of eternal suffering, that they both love AND fear Him. That is, after all, the very definition of sadomasochism.
I will never, ever, forget the morning I heard Jerry Falwell say, on national television, that the reason God permitted the carnage of September 11, 2001 was America’s “toleration” of gays, lesbians, the ACLU and atheists. I will never forget or forgive any politician who claims “God is on our side” as our nation is, again, taken to war. I read last night that more veterans of the Vietnam War have committed suicide than died in the war. But surely, as I was told at the time, God was on our side.
Who am I do doubt the revealed truth, graciously delivered to us all by the Religious Right and pious men like Rick Santorum, that abortion is murder and the Bible clearly says… Thou shall NOT kill? What right do I have to notice that fully half of Christian America’s annual budget goes to the military for doing, or, preparing to do just that?
In totalitarian dictatorships questioning the powers that be is a crime and citizens are watched constantly. Actions that are not permitted are a crime. Thoughts that are not “pure” are a crime. Citizens who do not think, act and speak in ways that are sanctioned by the authority are punished, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Isn’t it strange to realize that compared to Christians, Muslims, Mormons and the rest….. They have it easy. Their torture ends when they stop breathing.
So that’s my story. Think of me what you will, it’s of no consequence to me. We all have choices to make and make them we must if we are not to abdicate our sentience. That is not to say, or imply, that abdication of reason is not entirely human. It is, and more is the pity for that. As it stands in America today we are all free to sing “Amazing Grace”. How long some of us will remain free to sing “Imagine” is another question entirely.
Bloodhawk: There are plenty of people who agree with you and who want to eliminate gene variants contributing to crime. But along with crime all the fun, entrepreneurship, initiative and creativity that impulsivity (the major trait related to criminal behavior) brings will be eliminated as well. Think about what kind of world that would be.
Wait, what? I didn’t say anything about removing any gene. People commit crimes for a number of reasons. In criminology I learned that even if you remove a gene or enviromental element there are several other that might lead you to it. My point is for people to suck it up and learn about it’s own nature and then finally drop it. You know, learn from our own mistakes. People will always commit crimes for all those reasons you mentioned and many more. What I told before is that our lack of self understanding by allowing some religion to tell us how to live and think is what drove us into a path of destruction.
S.P. With all due respect, this is your blog and you are free as a bird to write ANYTHING you please on it, as I am on mine, but…. When you write…
…”Religion is slowly losing its influence in America. What I mean by this is many many young people think religion is… Well, crazy. In some aspects that is good but in others that may be a very bad thing down the road. I don’t really know, to be honest. Only time will tell.”…
1. America is the MOST religious country in the free world and growing more religious every day. Witness states mandating Creationism in their Public Education along side “that there” theory of evolution. NOT states taking Creationism out of Public Education, politics or public discourse.
2. You state “many young people think religion is… Well, crazy.” I don’t happen to agree. I think religion is MOST human, yet, I’m the one you accuse of being “fueled by hate”? Why not the “most young people”?
3. You finish by saying… “In some aspects that is good but in others that may be a very bad thing down the road. I don’t really know, to be honest. Only time will tell.”… So, you are saying you don’t have an opinion on religion? Then, would it not have been wiser for you NOT to have brought up this subject to begin with?
4. So, let me test your honesty. Should I assume that you would not be apposed to Fundamentalist Muslim countries being fully armed with nuclear weapons? After all, only a Christian nation ever used them on humans. If you were a Muslim in a Muslim country would you feel differently? Or, even though you brought this subject up, are you intellectually content to stick with a simplistic…. “Only time will tell”?
5. You are no doubt a very young person and full of promise. The young have the luxury of considering death as a far off event. You have time on your side. Use it to learn and gain information (not beliefs) from the wide reaching written works concerning the phenomena of religion. There are no and there have never been human cultures without religion AND their denial of death schemes. It’s as human as it gets! The question today is simply this…. in a world of diminishing resources and overpopulation AND nuclear weapons….. CAN we grow out of it?
1 + 2. Firstly, as I pointed out in my previous comment, the “fueled by hate” remark was incredibly rash and unjustifiable. A careless misinterpretation of your post’s true intent was the cause of that mistake. Now onto your points! I’ll try to answer them as best I can…
Our politicians are doing that now but I think in a generation or two we will see those mandates relinquished in most places. This relates to what I said earlier about young people being less inclined to believe in religion. I don’t have any statistical proof, so admittedly I can’t assert this as fact, but from what I’ve seen at college and in my own hometown there are a significant number of people who are around my age that don’t believe in any religion. For the ones that do believe in a religion, they don’t believe in creationism being taught in science classes and things of that nature. So I don’t exactly have cold hard proof with this point, I’m just commenting on what I have observed from my experiences with people around my age.
However, the religious extremists could still find their way into politics. I just hope they won’t have a significant amount of influence if that is the case…
3. I’m not saying I don’t have an opinion on religion, I just literally don’t know what kind of impact less religion would have on America (assuming religion really does lose a lot of influence over the next few decades). I don’t know what would come from the change. There could be more acceptance but there could also be more irresponsibility. I could see scapegoats being treated fairly, the LGBT community in particular, but I could also see traditional values decline or replaced by immediate self-satisfaction.
My religion and politics post was mainly about the extreme aspects of religion being used in politics (like that 9/11 quotation you shared in an earlier post). That’s the type of thing my post was criticizing, not really religion as a whole. Most of religion works perfectly fine with government and won’t restrict people’s rights. I may have articulated that point poorly, but it is my point nonetheless.
4. I can understand why a Muslim country like Iran would want to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Everyone around them has one and it would force countries like the U.S. to be more cautious. Not to mention that it would also make us show more respect to the country, even if that just means acknowledging its power. But does understanding their point of view make me their supporter? I’m not sure… It’s risky and frightening, but on the other hand they’ll probably develop one on their own eventually. It won’t matter how much we sanction them or how much we try to sabotage them. And if they develop one on their own before we back down and let them do what they want then we could end up in an even stickier situation. For now I’m undecided on that issue.
Actually, I might write a post about the situation with Iran and nuclear weapons. Thanks for reminding me of the topic!
5. Thanks for the advice, I’ll take it to heart!
Thank you S.P. … I would look forward to reading it.
Sorry to interject… but about 3. I don’t think that a state wihtout religion would be that bad if we have rights and obligations to follow… not to mention there would still be common sense – you don’t see atheists and agnostics acting all that free (some atheists have different opinions about subjects like abortion and it’s stages). Also, a state that runs fine without their religion interfering is Sweden (not even their right wing use religion, both wings sound very alike at some points) – but for you guys they don’t count, because they are socialists.
4. No country in the world should be allowed to get nukes at this point… it’s bad enough that US, Russia and China sum up around 30k nukes. And I changed my mind about Israel going in there after they start to forbid women from going to college. If IDF blast half their military the people might have a chance to rise up and take out the Ayatola and his sock puppet. He also forgot to mention that India has nukes (non muslim gov – same amount of batshit).
5. Neutron is right… even science can be a form of religion with emphasis on reason, facts and self-awareness. If I recall, you are in college, so take your timing learning and thinking, even my views came after years of long considerations.
My opinions are my own, not absolute truth and should be considered carefully.
Hi, Simple Politiks,
I picked this thread to thank you for your like on my blog Just Can’t Help Writing because this is a subject that fascinates me, and I find your views sensible and well-explained. I’m amazed at the energy you bring to these threads. Wow. As a writer, you might know folks who would be interested in another blog of mine, http://canwritingbetaught.wordpress.com/, where I’m trying to learn more about the problems people run into when they try to learn to write, especially in academic or professional settings. So if you know of anyone who might be willing to take a look at my questions, send ‘em over.
BTW, you might be interested in the transcripts of the Dover, PA, “intelligent design trial.” You can find them on the TalkOrigins Web site, which covers almost every aspect of the creationism debate. Fascinating reading, and some courtroom theater, too!
Best,
Virginia
A basic problem with Creationism is that it requires us to believe in a trickster God. It requires believing that God created a universe in which science clearly works. It makes our refrigerators work; it makes our cell phones work; it makes our cars work. Science works in this universe that God created.
Except when it comes to the age of the place. God apparently created a universe in which all the scientific facts shout out the true age of the universe (13+ billion years) and the true age of the planet Earth (about 4.5 billion years), but apparently these are all lies planted by a trickster God intent on fooling us.
So we have this extremely consistent universe, where science works, except when it comes to God’s Big Lie. Why would God lie to us? Is a lying God one you want to worship?
The only sensible explanation is that Genesis is a story and that God is fully capable of working on a time scale of billions of years. It is quite possible to see the Hand of God in the tapestry of evolution. I personally find it astonishing that RNA “just happened.” I totally agree with Dawkins that the human eye could easily have evolved, but the jump from “self replicating clays” to RNA seems a pretty big one to me. That’s where I wonder about the Touch of God.
But that is a matter of belief and philosophy, not science. Science is the study of the physical, material world. Theology and philosophy are the studies of our hearts, souls and minds. They must remain separate.
This is an excellent article about a topic very close to my heart. Tweeted.
Thank you so much, I’m glad you liked what I had to say.
Yes, this is an interesting debate, but it has flaws. Both protagonists seemed to show a lack of respect for each other, which rather spoilt it for me.
The creationist seemed a bit “wooly”, whilst Rob the scientist seemed to be only beating one drum “Was the earth created 6-10,000 years ago.
The bottom line is that whichever way the earth came into existence there was once a man who came and walked this earth, he did no wrong, his followers deserted him, the “believers” of that time had him crucified, but even secular commentators agreed he rose again.
Let’s ask ourselves a simple question. If the claims of Jesus are true, and his fiercest opponents couldn’t fault him shouldn’t we at least have an open mind that what this man said my just be true?
Does it matter to whether the earth was made in 6000 or 6,000,000 years? Not particularly.
Does it matter to me that Jesus repeatedly spoke about our relationships, eternity, and being answerable to God? Absolutely.
I haven’t once heard a scientist who could demonstrate how or why I can have a fulfilled life now, and eternal security. Personally I’d trust Jesus 100% thank you. All you scientists who seek to argue and oppose faith, thanks it just endorses my belief in God!
You’re right about the two people showing a lack of respect for each other. That is never a good starting point in any debate. As for what you believe and why you believe it, so be it as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. You’re free to live your own life. But the heart of the debate, the reason why it is even occuring, stems from the belief that creationism can be taught in a science course. Unfortunately creationism is not an observable phenomenon in the universe. Scientific “theories” are not the same theories that people usually presume to mean “unsupported hunches” (or something similar). So there is just no room for creationism in a science class because it would be like teaching history in a mathematics class; they aren’t the same subject.
Appreciate your contribution, my friend! Hopefully you’ll stop by regularly
Evolution can not be proven as absolute fact, scientists change their conclusions constantly, and their is no “missing link”. They have touted now and again to have one, but no real, hard proof has been discovered. God can not be explained, by anyone. That is why faith is at the center of any belief. Science has ALOT of faith, more than Christians. They have faith in the theory of evolution. Randomness and chance are the foundation stones of evoution. A random mutation that wasn’t destructive and a chance that it led to the life forms we have today. That sure takes alot of faith. Christians believe in God as creator and Christ as co-creator. A perfect order and design to everything, including man and his thought process as opposed to instinct the lower life forms such as animals have. This is two oposite points of view, and both should be considered. sorry, but I do believe that God created men and the intricacies of the human body are miraculous, the bible says, “I am fearfullly and wonderfully made.” I’ll take that. I know it’s true.
Just my thoughts,
Angela
Well, creationism is part of science: it’s one theory of how the universe came to existence. The idea of a “supreme being” may sound spiritual, or even superstitious, but it’s really little more than saying the system that is the universe and everything it contains relies on one external axiom outside the system. Some may even argue that this is a must by Goedel’s incompleteness theorem.
In science, it’s only honest that no theory which has not yet been disproved should be discarded, just because it’s commonly associated with faith or spirituality.
Creationism is not a part of science, because it is in no way testable. If every theory was science, then most things, including palm reading, are science. The problem with the supreme being is that the supreme being would be supernatural, and therefore untestable. So while a supreme being (or beings, whichever you believe) may exist, anything that relies on the supreme being is not science.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, these are science because they are testable, the results are repeatable, and they explain the physical world around us. Intelligent Design/Creationism are not science because they are in no way testable. So yes, creationism is a theory on how the universe came into existence, but it is not science.
If we said that we could teach creationism is in the science classroom, then we would have to let every religion teach there creation story in the science classroom, effectively making the science classroom a theology class.
I never quite understand why many take the stance or belief that everything is religion versus science – or creationism versus evolution. We scientifically have had no way to appropriately test many theories throughout the centuries and have had to come to new considerations with new understandings. The genome project among other findings in recent years have brought us to many new understandings. Yet if we are practicing good research, we come to realize that we don’t “prove” anything – we collect evidence objectively (which is the main problem when either side takes an absolute stance – by becoming a “side”) and we cite what that evidence suggests on our current understanding of a matter. Scientifically, varying theories should be discussed in the classroom, if we are going to teach our students to become thinkers. I personally believe God is big enough to exist if truly God, regardless of whether people believe or not. I also personally believe it’s foolish for people to try to argue on behalf of God by throwing out nonsensical information that evidence doesn’t support. Furthermore, if we’re teaching students to think, they need to consider context of information gathered. The biblical information we have about creationism came from a primitive man with oral tradition; it doesn’t bother me one bit to reconcile that man being created from “dust” may signify genetic material of which earlier generations had no knowledge. Our advances in medicine will force us to rethink many bioethical considerations based upon new understandings. If we don’t allow students to reconcile issues scientifically from various theories, we’ll cut them short on thinking of how to reconcile these future issues.
The nature of the ‘revealed religions’: Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam is that conclusions are revealed to mankind as and when God is ready to share them. We humans must read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Science, by contrast, is all about going through the detail and adjusting the conclusion to suit the facts. To teach religious mythology as science is to seriously misunderstand the purpose of both.
Australians find this endless debate in the US about evolution vs. creationsim in school completely mind-blowing. There’s no problem teaching either at school, but in the appropriate class. Religion and science address different parts of the brain.
I like your blog and your thinking. Nobody knows.
I came across this explanation from a creationist of why scientific test say the earth and its elements are Millions of years old.
Here is the quote:
“He (God) spoke forth from himself ALL the material used to create the earth and the heavens. God is eternal. Everything literally comes from him. That is why when you try and measure it with your radio carbon and other dating measurements you always come up with the material being millions of years old. It is because he is eternal and we have no equipment to measure eternity so it comes up with numbers higher than you expected.”
So what about when we use carbon dating to date things that are 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 years old? In fact, carbon dating gives us exactly the figures we expect.
Creationism is just flat out false.
I was wondering if I’d see you again, Wyrd. I took a bit of a break because of schoolwork so I thought I had lost most of my older followers. I don’t know if you’ve read any recent posts, but I wrote a few while I was on winter break. Starting this weekend I should be writing at least two a week, ideally one every 2-3 days once I get in the swing of things. Hope to see you around in the future!