How To Counter Creationism In Schools

If you get someone who says that Creationism should be taught in schools, this is a good way to counter that.

Likely, these guys are self-absorbed or fanatics intent on pushing their own selfish agenda. So suggest to them that it would be unfair- if they include Creationism into the schools- to teach only Christianity's version. Since Christianity can offer no facts as to the validity of it's own unique claims, all the origin myths of all religions must be taught to kids. Islam, Shinto, Buddhist, Wiccan, Taoist, Luciferian, the Ancient Aliens Guys,...all of that. If Religion is to be considered a valid subject to academically review, one must take the responsible measure in reviewing all religious theories equally and have them cross-examined equally by facts.

Sound fair?

 

I only ever encounter people who think creationism should be taught in public schools on the internet.

Where I live, people who think that usually keep their mouths shut, probably because they generally can't handle the enormous amount of ridicule, excoriation and outright dismissal of them and their religious beliefs, that would ensue.

 

It is pretty silly.

What would the lesson plan be for creationism ...

"And students, today we are going to learn about Creationist Theory for our universe. Here we go. Something, nobody knows who or what for sure created the universe in some fashion - we're not sure how, and we don't know for what reason. But there you have it. Next lesson."

Not sure Christians who want Creationism taught in school have really thought out just how that's going to play out.

 

Creation class:

Average length of course~ 15 minutes in one day
Lesson Plan~ Sky Fairy magic 101

 

Fair? Maybe. I tend to just prefer to not treat the ridiculous as being anything but and wouldn't entertain the idea of any of that crap being the credibility of being taught at an academic level. Outside of college or other private schools at least.

That said. If they wanted to have a world mythology class and teach various creation myths in that class. I'm okay with that.

 

Perhaps its just the principle of creationism that should be taught, not the various religious accounts of it. For all of these various religious accounts share a commonality, and that commonality is an intelligence was involved not only in creation itself, but in the evolution of what was created.

We already have serious scientists, from physicists to biologists who think Consciousness is the creator of this virtual reality we call the universe. So, this argument from science would work, but it doesn't claim this god or that god did it, just that Consciousness did it. The claim is that Consciousness is the fundamental, not matter. And since the implications from the hard science of quantum mechanics have always pointed to Consciousness as the fundamental, from several of the early founders, a sort of creationism would not be anti science at all. It would be based in science not religion.

Of course the materialists would holler and scream, but as these men die out, science will move forward and get away from being stuck in a materialistic understanding of reality. There is a change of paradigm in our future, for the evidence is piling up to point to Consciousness as being the fundamental, and that acknowledgment would indeed be a paradigm changing event. Science progress is marked by tombstones.

 

You obviously don't live in Pensacola, Florida.......

 

Creationism doesn't need to be taught in schools, but macroevolution should only be taught as a theory. Right now, it's being taught as a fact.

 

You need to learn what those words mean in the context of scientific discussion. It is both theory and fact.

 

But one day is like a thousand years.

 

Alright. Scientific theory is certainly a hypothesis based upon facts. Now, I believe microevolution and speciation are facts. We can observe and test those two. Macroevolution cannot be observed or tested. So, how is this a fact, sir?

 

the creating of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has pretty much destroyed the entire ID movement

 

What exactly are you defining macroevolution as? Usually people define it as speciation and above in the taxonomic level. But regardless, we can see the results of macroevolution through DNA sequencing.

 

I have no problem with teach comparative religion in school. In fact, I think it should be mandatory, but should be focused on major religions.

 

you mean like a world religions course rather then put religion into a science course

 

i don't care if it is taught in home ec or senior gym. pedagogy means nothing to me.

 

Sounds good, gotta add the Norse myths, the Greco-Roman mythos, Ancient Egyptian, Scientology, whatever horrible demon created the kardashians etc. Have to be equitable.

 

Right. I mean, we share 8% of our DNA retroviral sequencing with Koalas (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10136/20141107/koalas-shed-light-on-human-genome.htm). Macroevolution does not help in this regard.

I'll explain Macroevolution to you:
Every day, you see a cow jump over a fence to get to the other side. You see that same cow jump back over the fence as well. Macroevolution essentially says, over several million years, that cow will be able to jump to the moon.

Macroevolution says that microevolution over the course of several million years, would produce an animal of a completely different family than of its common ancestor. The problem is, we've never seen a single animal do this. Not one single animal found in the fossil record has shown any evidence of (for example) a dog evolving into a non-dog. So far, we've seen fossils that suggest that once you're a dog, you stay a dog. Once a cat, you stay a cat. Once you're a horse, you stay a horse.

 

I point out that science has no way of creating a fact. That is, the only facts are recorded data points - a thermometer registered x degrees at a particular time and location, the sun was y degrees above the horizon at this location at this time as indicated by that timing methodology, etc. Note that there are no steps of logic involved.

Science provides NO way of proving anything to be true - it only has proof of falsehood.

Evolution is a theory - the reason it is called "the theory of evolution". Theory is the strongest form of truth that science can create. Evolution stands as a foundation of all modern biology, because it has been a stronger and more consistent tool than any other competing theory.

Unlike religion, all findings of science are always and forever available to be proven false. Einstein is famous, because he blew such a big hole in all the prevailing theories of physics. But, his replacement is "the theory of relativity" - NOT "the fact of relativity".

Macroevolution can be tested. It predicts what will be discovered when one examines dated fossil remains, for example. If dated fossil remains show progressions through time that are counter to macroevolution, then macroevolution has been proven false. However, that hasn't happened. Even as new methods (such as dna sequencing) become available, they confirm the progressions that macroevolution had already defined, thus strengthening confidence in the theory. Also, nobody has found a theory that is competitive in terms of it's power to explain and predict what is found in nature.

 

The supreme Court has already ruled several times on this issue. Creationism is religion and cannot be taught in public schools because it violates the constitution to do so. End of discussion.

 

It's also not a secular subject. If they want to teach this in their religious schools, fine. But you can't subject a religious subject onto a secular school. It's against the constitution to endorse a religion.

 

Umm.. Predicting isn't testing. I can predict you're going to get hit by a car tomorrow. Doesn't mean it'll happen.

Also, you claim "theory" is the strongest form of truth science can create. That's half true and half false. Theories simply explain things, but they can be proven false. The highest form of truth would be a fact - something indisputable that leaves nothing up to interpretation. A theory is not a fact. They are two separate categories of scientific reasoning. Once macroevolution becomes proven, then it becomes a fact, just like speciation and microevolution, because instead of scientists needing to explain the phenomenon, they'd simply be describing the phenomenon.

 

... and that is why we need to end every shred of religious freedom in this country. Christians should have to pay out the nose if they want to send their kids to a NON state sponsored school. And if they are too poor to do that, then they should be sent to institutions that ridicule their beliefs, and tell them their parents are idiots for believing in anything other than the state.

---Karl Marx

 

I'm a thiest and I agree with the law here. Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools if we are going to be tolerant to other religions. Macroevolution is simply a scientific theory, and I do not believe in encroaches on anyone's beliefs. If you don't believe in it, then don't believe in it.