Creationism in schools

[Eric McTavish]

Ohh this is fun...
http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1103019790236140.xml

Creationism evolves into court fight
Dover parents to sue over 'intelligent-design' mandate
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
BY CHARLES THOMPSON AND MARY WARNER Of The Patriot-News

York County is about to become the next battlefront in the long-running struggle over the teaching of evolution.

A battery of national civil liberties groups plans to join today with a knot of Dover Area School District parents to file a federal lawsuit aimed at blocking the Dover Area School Board's decision to teach "intelligent design" in a ninth-grade biology course.

The Dover board voted 6-3 in October to require teachers to present intelligent-design theory as an alternative to evolution, which must be taught under state academic standards.

Two of the dissenting board members, Carol Brown and her husband, Jeff Brown, resigned in protest after the vote.

Board member Angie Yingling, who originally voted for the policy, announced during a Dec. 6 board meeting that she intended to resign after she was unable to get the board to reconsider its decision.

Intelligent-design theory holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.

Its champions say it provides an alternative argument to evolution, the generally accepted scientific principle that the Earth's species have diversified through time under the influence of natural selection.

Critics say the introduction of the intelligent-design theory moves classroom discussion from science to theology.

The 11 parents joining the federal lawsuit, expected to be filed today by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, contend the school board's decision violates their religious liberties "by promoting religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education."

"I have no problem teaching creationism, but not as a science," one of those parents, Joel Leib of Dover Twp., said yesterday. "I learned my creation in Sunday school, and I learned my evolution in high school."

Spokesmen for the national groups would not comment yesterday on the Dover case.

The Dover board's action was spearheaded by board member William Buckingham, the chairman of the curriculum committee, who pushed for a "balanced presentation."

"I think it's a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district to portray one theory over and over," he told The Associated Press this fall.

Karl Girton, the chairman of the State Board of Education, saw the passions that evolution can evoke when he presided over the rewriting of statewide science standards in 2001.

"Clearly, there are two camps that are very heavily emotionally invested around the issue," he said.

State standards require the teaching of evolution, which Girton and others note has withstood more than 100 years of analysis and questioning. But districts may teach other theories as long as they don't violate constitutional prohibitions against promoting religion in school.

Perhaps the best-known scientist in the intelligent-design movement is Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor who graduated from Harrisburg's Bishop McDevitt High School in 1969.

Behe agrees that living things evolved from common ancestors, but he says Charles Darwin's description of how evolution occurs -- natural selection among random mutations -- cannot explain the complexity he observes as a biochemist.

Behe spoke on the topic several years ago at the Evangelical Free Church of Hershey. The Rev. Dave Martin said yesterday that teaching intelligent design made sense to him.

"I personally believe the approach is based on science, starts with science," he said. "That's what differentiates it from creationism, which starts from Scripture."

Most scientists, though, have negative views of the intelligent-design theory. The American Association for the Advancement of Science declared in 2002 that intelligent design is about religion, not science, and doesn't belong in science classes.

Proposals to teach intelligent design began to reach school boards after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 against teaching creationism as science in public schools. Dover's board is apparently the first to approve such a proposal, said Nicholas Matzke, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education.

In recent weeks, Dover administrators have stressed they will not let their classrooms become a forum to "promote or inhibit" views about religion.

"The Dover Area School District wants to support and not discriminate against students and parents that do have competing beliefs, especially in the area of the origin-of-life debate," the district said in a statement last month.

CHARLES THOMPSON: 705-5724 or [email protected] MARY WARNER: 255-8267 or [email protected]

[Dragonfly]

That was on the news last night. Never fear, the ACLU is already taking legal action against it...
Man, I would throw a hissy fit and remove my kids in a heartbeat if they tried to do that...in a science class anyway.
now, if it was a cultures class and discussing creation myths or alternate non-scientific ways the world came in to being...or hell, even a philosophy class...no problem
As long as the idea's in the proper context, my not-yet-existant kids could sit in on it.

[Eric McTavish]

My problem is science it the study of facts thru theroy... you creat a situation and test the theroy against it but you CANT do that with Creationism... that makes it a mater of faith not science doesnt it?

[Leela]

Damn I'm so sick of this nonsense.

Some definitions:

theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Creationism is no more than a weak hypothesis with no scientific base. IMNSHO it's really just a story that got too big for it's britches. There is no way to test it expirimentally using scientific method, thus, it can never be a scientific theory, THUS it does not belong in science classes. Period.

Enough already.

OK...through preaching to the choir.

[Kae]

First statement:

I soo hope that the school district loses the lawsuit. The intelligent design theory is just a clever ploy to disguise creationism and bring it into the science classroom. Notice that it is only the Christian groups backing it. And yes, science is the use of facts to prove or dispove a theory. They claim that the complex development of humans and other living beings proves that there must be some superior "power" directing it. They refuse to listen to other facts involved, such as the size of the universe and probability factors.

I agree that other theories and ideas of how life began are a large part of cultural studies, but not scientific studies unless the science is anthropology.

I can't believe that a school board got this one past the state board of education - things like that have to be approved.

Kae

[Gemdrite]

While I agree with you Eric, you can't prove or disprove the theory of creationism (i don't consider it a myth, as dragonfly called it, simply because i believe it is true, but i realize that mine is not the only viewpoint, and will therefore stick to theory, which it is), there are some very interesting websites for scientific apologetics. I had to do a paper on sci. apologetics, which, for anyone who doesn't know what that is (i didn't until after i did the paper, cause my teacher assumed that we should all know it and refused to explain it), is proving the existence of God with science, and there is some really interesting reading about it. If anyone is interested i could probably find the sites again.

[Eric McTavish]

on this smae sentiment...
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?ts=1&display=rednews/2004/12/10/build/state/25-dino-museum.inc

Faith in fossils: Glendive man plans dinosaur museum to teach 'creation truth'
By ED KEMMICK
Of The Gazette Staff

GLENDIVE - Otis Kline is hoping to build what he says will be the second-largest dinosaur and fossil museum in Montana, complete with a theater, laboratory and 13 full-size dinosaur replicas.

This would be a dinosaur museum with a twist, however.

Kline wants to use the fossils to teach visitors a strictly biblical account of creation, to "absolutely demolish," as he says on his Web site, "evolutionism's nonsense."
Mainstream scientists are as certain that the earth is billions of years old as they are that it is round, but Kline says he believes that the earth is 6,500 to 7,000 years old. He believes that the other planets, the moon, our sun and all the stars are as old as the earth, and that dinosaurs were among the animals that trooped, two by two, onto Noah's ark.
Kline, the founder of FACT - Foundation Advancing Creation Truth - already has a 37-acre fossil camp just outside Glendive's city limits, where groups of like-minded amateurs can help with excavations and learn about creationism.
In a statement of beliefs on the FACT Web site, Kline says the Bible is "completely free from error in the original manuscripts." And of all the stories in the Bible, Kline said, none have come in for more ridicule than those in Genesis, which tell of the creation of the universe and the peopling of the earth.
The words of the Bible ultimately have to be taken on faith, Kline said, but if the events in Genesis can be shown to be true, everything else in the Bible "can be taken on much greater faith."
Kline's endeavors were inspired by a dinosaur fossil field trip he made in the early 1990s to Alberta, Canada, led by another creationist, Dennis Petersen.
"I could see how it changed people's lives when they could actually see the truth of the Bible," he said.
Kline said he and his wife were land developers in Arizona before moving to Montana's Bitterroot Valley in 1980, where they worked in health care. Over the years he hunted a lot in the Glendive area, often enough to know that the region was rich in dinosaur fossils. After doing several digs on private land in the area in recent years, he decided to move to Glendive in the winter of 2003.
He bought his 37 acres and already has made a find or two on the property. He said a group of people interested in creationism who came to the site last summer helped him unearth parts of a triceratops, including a pelvic bone, a piece of the nose horn, ribs and a chunk of frill. He has another promising hillside that will be excavated this summer, and three groups have registered to take part in those digs.
Kline also likes the Glendive area because the layers of mud and shale in the Hell Creek formation seem to point to a massive flood - the Flood described in Genesis. He considers it proof of a "young earth" theory that dinosaur fossils are found in the same strata as the fossils of figs, flowering plants and sequoia needles.
How do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible? Kline points to Job 40:15, which speaks of "the behemoth" that "feeds on grass like an ox."
"I believe there were dinosaurs put on the ark," Kline said. "There was no rule that said they had to be mature."
Only fossils of the dinosaurs remain because the Flood so altered the earth that dinosaurs could not survive in the new environment, Kline said. He expressed the same certainty when he described God creating the stars and planets all at once on the fourth day of creation.
The stars and planets were brought into being fully functional and mature, just as Adam and Eve were created as adults capable of producing children, Kline said. The Bible says the stars and planets were created to mark the seasons and to serve as signs for people on earth, and that's all they are, Kline said.
"Of what use would a sign be if it took a thousand light years, or whatever, to reach you?" he asked.
Tom Reeves, a teacher of chemistry, microbiology and mathematics at Dawson Community College in Glendive, said he doesn't have any objections to Kline's plans and doesn't think there's any reason to fear the placement of such a museum in Glendive.
He said it won't affect his job, which is "to teach science as it is currently practiced, taught and studied." In his own life, Reeves said, he doesn't see science or the theory of evolution "as a threat to whatever personal beliefs I hold based on faith."
If mainstream scientists would take issue with almost all of Kline's ideas, so, probably, would most mainstream theologians.
The Rev. Ken Olson of Lewistown, a retired Lutheran minister who was been a research associate in paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman for 16 years, said he sees no reason to talk about religion excluding the conclusions of science, or vice versa.
"Science describes the how but does not and cannot explain the why of nature," Olson said. "Science deals with how the world works. Religion deals with the deeper questions of meaning and purpose by which we live every day."
He also quoted Francis Bacon, one of the founders of the modern scientific method, who wrote in 1605: "There are two books of God: the Book of God's Word and the Book of God's Works. They are not to be confused in their nature, language, or purpose, and we must not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together."
But Kline sees danger in the teachings of science.
"When you visit a major natural history museum today," he says on his Web site, "you will see wide-eyed elementary and preschool children (not to mention their parents and teachers) being funneled into an abyss of scientific deception. No matter whether it's the study of animals, earth science, or astronomy, the wonders of God's creation are prostituted for evolutionism."
Visitors will face no such dangers at the museum for which Kline hopes to break ground next spring. His foundation has purchased land for the museum on Merrill Avenue just north of the I-94 interchange. Various businesses have donated building materials, architectural services, labor and equipment, Kline said, and fund-raising continues for the rest of the two-story structure.
He said the total cost has been estimated at $1.6 million, of which $750,000 would be spent on the dinosaur exhibits. He plans to have 13 full-size dinosaurs made of fiberglass, resins and other materials, molded from casts of the original fossils.
There would also be an exhibit area where ranchers and other landowners could display, on loan or as permanent donations, dinosaur bones and other fossils found on their property. The museum would also have a laboratory and what Kline calls a "rest of the story" theater.
Kline is a Southern Baptist, but he said the museum and fossil camp will be open to all faiths, to anyone who wants to find biblical answers to the questions raised by science.
"We felt that the Lord really had a ministry he wanted done here," Kline said.

Ed Kemmick can be reached at 657-1293 or [email protected]

[Leela]

Oh. And for all those blowhards who don't "believe" in evolution...I have one word.

Bacteria.

stupid gits.
:irked:

Off the soapbox now. Really.

[Gemdrite]

just wanted to correct my original post in light of leelas.....creationism is a hypothesis, but i don't think it is as weak as you claim it. just my opinion, obvious not everyone is going to agree with each other.

[Nevada]

as soon as the words "higher power" or "God" are mentioned it is automatically religion to me there no place in a school..separation of church and state...religion should be taught at home and in houses of worship not in a school were people of many faiths and non faiths are being educated...hell with the test scores lately shouldnt they be concentrating on providing the teachers with the supplies they need to educate our little mutants and paying them a decent wage so the kids will pass

[Kae]

HUZZAH! to that Nevada.

Kae

[Gemdrite]

as soon as the words "higher power" or "God" are mentioned it is automatically religion to me there no place in a school..separation of church and state...religion should be taught at home and in houses of worship not in a school were people of many faiths and non faiths are being educated...hell with the test scores lately shouldnt they be concentrating on providing the teachers with the supplies they need to educate our little mutants and paying them a decent wage so the kids will pass

at the same time, we teach different ways to solve math problems, we teach different ways to achieve the same result in an experiment, we teach different words to use to mean the same thing.....so why can't we teach different hypothesis for creation? as long as we teach all of them, not just a select few, i don't see the harm in it.

i would also just like to state right now, that while i don't believe that evolution is what created this world, that does not mean that i don't believe in evolution at all. i actually got into a fight about this with my science professor, and i believe that that is the reason why, no matter what i did in her class, she was determined to fail me. we argued after class about evolution, and she informed me that evolution does not exist. period. no such thing. and i argued with her that while according to our faith (i go to a lutheran college) evolution did not create the earth, that evolution still exists. like leela said, look at bacteria. from that point on in class, no matter what i handed in i got no higher than a C, even if it was almost the exact same answer as a friend of mines who was in the class....i had my friend go over everything before i handed it in, and she would get As and i would be lucky if i got a C. it is people like this that give the rest of us christians a bad name.

i promptly went back to my room, blew up the definition of evolution and printed it, and stuck it on the cover of my binder.

i have this woman again next semester.....*sighs*

[Kae]

And fo rthose who believe in Creationism and believe it is truth so it should be taught in school, what about the other groups who have other beliefs? I mean, what about the Hindu beliefs and the Confuscionous ? beliefs and the Native American beliefs? THere are sites and the such dedicated to proven there accuracy as well. I just belive until the scientific community as a majority backs those theories as at least a probability - they should not be taught in school. Again, strict separationist of church and state. I, as a teacher, do not want to be responsible for teaching our children spirituality - that is a job for the families.

Kae

[Nevada]

again to believe a higher power had a hand in creating me is a faith based belief
evolution is based on scientific theory

faith classes have no place in school.....unless offered as an elective class in higher education facilities

[Leela]

at the same time, we teach different ways to solve math problems, we teach different ways to achieve the same result in an experiment, we teach different words to use to mean the same thing.....so why can't we teach different hypothesis for creation? as long as we teach all of them, not just a select few, i don't see the harm in it.

Your question starts off on the wrong foot. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. Hence, the "Theory of Evolution". It has been, and continues to be, scientifically tested and measured, and upheld by the consequent supporting data. Your question is phrased to communicate that evolution is a hypothesis on par with creationism, which is not the case. Evolution=theory. Creationism/intelligent design=hypothesis.

I said creationism is a weak scientific hypothesis. And it is, because it can not be measured, or investigated in a scientific manner, using scientific method. This doesn't have anything to do with opinion. It is what it is.

As a general hypothesis, Creationism/ID is on par with any other idea that attempts to explain why/how we are all here. As Kae pointed out, there are many different religions out there with a multitide of different ideas about this. Creationism belongs in the arenas of religion/anthropology/social studies. Not science. The "harm" in putting religion on the same field as science is this: it undermines both institutions. It undermines science by creating an arena that disregards the vital ways in which nature is studied and measured and tested by scientists. It undermines religion by trying to put into human language something which is beyond our understanding, and something which cannot be scientifically measured. And something which quite frankly (IMHO), should remain beyond our understanding.

Creationism/ID is only another way of trying to find a way of definitely stating, "there is a god, and we have "scientific" data to back us up." Where does that leave faith?

Nowhere. Religions are built on the principle of believing in something not because it is able to be proven scientifically, but because ultimately, it "feels" right. And what feels right to Christians will be different (but perhaps not as much as some would have us believe) from what feels right to followers of Islam, or Judaism, or Buddism, or etc. etc.etc.

Maybe this whole debacle is a sign that religion is faltering. That, finally, people want something more than the rules and regulations mandated by their religious human leaders, but don't know where to go to find it.


i have this woman again next semester.....*sighs*

Kudos on confronting your "teacher" on evolution :) . Methinks in this case the student has surpassed the master.

Cheers,

[Phoenix McHeit]

i actually got into a fight about this with my science professor, and i believe that that is the reason why, no matter what i did in her class, she was determined to fail me.

from that point on in class, no matter what i handed in i got no higher than a C, even if it was almost the exact same answer as a friend of mines who was in the class....i had my friend go over everything before i handed it in, and she would get As and i would be lucky if i got a C.

i have this woman again next semester.....*sighs*

Slightly OT here. Gem, hun - that is completely unethical. If you have proof, like your friend's papers, please, please, PLEASE go to someone about that. Guidance Counselor, Dean, School Board if necessary, but SOMEONE. Personal opinion of students has absolutely no basis in grading. Especially if it continues next semester... you don't have to just sit there & take it.

One would think that teachers would be HAPPY to have a student willing to disagree & back it up with details, rather than just mindlessly taking notes & regurgitating the 'form answers'. No matter what personal beliefs are.. You Go Girl! Stand up for yourself. (as long as you do it maturely, of course :) )

[Dmitri]

we teach different ways to solve math problems...

Bad anology, since there is in math only *one* correct answer, regardless of the way you got there.

I don't mean to insult Gem, but the very idea that creationism should be taught in public school seems to me a huge step backwards in understanding our world and how we got here.

[Gemdrite]

we teach different ways to solve math problems...

Bad anology, since there is in math only *one* correct answer, regardless of the way you got there.


I guess I was looking at it as, the earth is here, we are here, it was created somehow. That is our one correct answer. Now, how we got here, would be the "problem." Kinda like, you believe that 3+2=5, I believe that 4+1+5....two different ways to achieve the same answer. And to you, your answer is right, and to me, my answer is right, and someday we may find out that both of our beliefs as far as the earth's beginnings may be right. Personally, I believe in creationism. I believe that God created this earth, but I don't believe in a literal 7 days creation. I believe that what is a day to God may be a million years to us, which accounts for the age of the earth.

I just read about this same topic at another message board I go to, and an interesting point was made, about how the pursuit of science could potentially be considered a religion in itself. "One of the definitions of religion is, “a belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion”. I believe that there are a lot of scientists whose religion is, actually, science. The theory of evolution is the biggest pile of crap ever propagated in the halls of intellectual thought. I takes more faith to believe in the myth of evolution than it does to believe in a literal seven day creation. Now if I make that statement in my college biology class, my science professor will condemn me to intellectual hell; just like any other religion. And she will do so because that is what the leaders of her community (religion), promote. But there are numerous members of the scientific community that not only subscribe to a literal creation, but claim they can prove it, and disprove evolution. Among them are scientists who formerly accepted evolution, then came to reject it. This group of scientists is given virtually no credibility among the scientific community at large, and certainly few, if any, institutions of higher learning, which was part of my original point. Science, in a way, is its own religion. Those who "believe" are "saved"; those who don't are "lost"."

Just some interesting intellectual food to chew on.

*sits back and waits for the flames*

[Dmitri]

I believe that God created this earth, but I don't believe in a literal 7 days creation. I believe that what is a day to God may be a million years to us, which accounts for the age of the earth.

Then, you don't believe the bible word for word...

[Blue Pixie]

Personally, I think that's an interesting way of putting it and in a way I agree (although my best friend would most likely disagree [she's a science major]), but at the same time I would have to disagree (God I swear I'm sweeden at heart).

I agree in the sense that, like in your definition, sciencists do uphold their beliefs with a great amount of zeal. But that is really the most I agree with. Personnal I see science as a way of understanding the natural world and though a theory may be founded by one person, it has been tested again and again by many others, testing to see if this one person was true.

Now when it comes to this ultimate being starting things off (no matter to what extent) I think that would be the basis of a religion, and should not be taught in school. I think it might be mentioned so students know there are other in sense theories out there, but it shouldn't be taught.

Well that's what I think

[Mylilpinkpig]

Wow, Gem,,,,excellent post. I never thought of it but your right science itself can be considered a religion. I am glad you brought up the point that you can believe in creationism and not take the bible literally word for word. In my church, we were always taught that the bible was an interpretation of God's word. It's how man intrepreted God's word and the interpretation was influenced by the writers own perception of things. By the way, when I wrote a paper on that for a mandatory religion class in college I got an F which was later overturned by the dean. Hang in there with your science professor.

[Leela]

Well. Gemrite. That’s a lot of ideas you’ve gleaned from your other board. Sharing such a deluge of beliefs (from undocumented sources, no less) only goes to further illustrate the difference between science and religion. Religion is about belief being supported by numerous people saying things to support each other in their beliefs of the why and how of the existence of physical phenomena. In other words, a lot of air, but no physical substance. Science is about measured physical data supporting the why and how of the existence of physical phenomena. Check out http://www.nature.com/ for some great articles that are WAY beyond MY ken.

There are varying grades of scientists. Some are good. Some suck. Which is one of the reasons they don’t get into the better schools to teach. Many scientists are theistic. They see that one does not necessarily have to give up one to have the other. They are able to be brilliant scientists while still having a rich spiritual life. Einstein comes to mind. Some scientists are able to have a rich spiritual life without religion or any belief in a god at all. Natalie Angier comes to mind (Woman: An Intimate Geography. If you haven’t read it, do. Great stuff).

Having a basic understanding of how science and scientific research is conducted would go a long way to illustrate the basic and very fundamental differences between science and religion. Picking up and flipping through a copy of JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine will show how research is conducted and documented.

Is science treated by some with the same reverence as others show their religions? Sure. Doesn’t make it a religion though. Or vice versa. Which is why creationism doesn't belong in the science classroom.

[daBaroness]

Well, in Kansas (I live in Missouri) they have the opposite problem. People have filed lawsuits that require schools to teach creationism if they're going to teach evolution. The Bible-thumpers don't want the science taught and they've been having all sorts of legal battles for years. I'm not really sure where it stands because it doesn't affect my children - but the whole deal makes me wanna puke.

Yep - I live in the buckle of the belt ...

[Kae]

My stepson has told us for years - he is 12 now - that science is his religion. When asked why, he replies with the reason that science theories can be definitively proved or disproved, as other religions cannot. He states that in his "religion" facts are the bible and if they cannot be proven definitively they are thrown away. He is an interesting red-head who I love dearly.

So I have to state again as a teacher. In my world geography classes, when we discuss cultural and societal development, we learn about the development of the different religions around the world. Could I ever portray any of the religions as fact - HELL no! Even in this class, where the concepts are protrayed as just part of cultural development, the students are adament about their beliefs. I must intervene many "heated" discussions to keep the class focused. Would I want to bring that into a science classroom? No, it would be too divisive to the student body as a whole.

Science belongs in science class, religion has other places to be.

Kae

[Gemdrite]

I believe that God created this earth, but I don't believe in a literal 7 days creation. I believe that what is a day to God may be a million years to us, which accounts for the age of the earth.

Then, you don't believe the bible word for word...

A good deal of the bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I don't believe that if I sin with my eyes I should pluck them out either, but that is in the bible. I still believe that it took 7 days. But what is 7 days to God is not necessarily 7 days to us. That's all I am saying.

[Nevada]

you know we actually had a case down here a few years ago where a woman had her sisters blind her based on that religious passage.....horrifying

[Dragonfly]

[quote=Dmitri]
A good deal of the bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I don't believe that if I sin with my eyes I should pluck them out either, but that is in the bible. I still believe that it took 7 days. But what is 7 days to God is not necessarily 7 days to us. That's all I am saying.

*clapping* Yay! A Xtian who can think outside the box! Literal translations are the death of a lot of arguments.

As to refering to it as a myth...anything from any religion is a myth. Not picking at Xtianity itself when I say that. Creation myths are in ALL cultures.
I have even heard the Bible refered to as Xtian mythology before... I don't go with that because a lot of it can be historically verified in terms of people, places, events, etc...but if one can step back and view the context, one sees that Xtianity can be categorized in the same manner as the myths of the Greeks and Romans.

As I stated before, I'm not against them offering creationalism in schools...I am against them offering it in a science class. Science has it's own set of protocols that must be met and creationalism, so far as I have researched it, doesn't adhere to those.
Faith cannot be quantified. Science can. That's my argument and I'm stickin' to it.

[I'Cin]

If we work with the premise that the Christian Bible does not always have a literal meaning (e.g., the 7 days of creation may have actually occurred over millions of years), how does the theory of evolution disprove the theory of creationism? (And I'm sticking with word "theory", at least for now.) All "evolution" attempts to show is that whatever was "created" then "evolved" into its present form. Evolution does not provide for a beginning point. Comparing creationism and evolution is like comparing apples and potatoes. The real comparison if you want to use creationism is how we got here originially. Thhere are many theories as to the beginning of this planet and of life on this planet. And if "the Big Bang" theory is taught in science, shouldn't "Creation" theory also be taught? There really isn't much more proof of the big bang than there is of creation by a higher power.

And even scientists won't insist that evolution is proven: "There is a growing mountain of evidence that supports evolution. It will never be proven true because we can not know for sure. But by using the scientific method, we can make a good guess, based on careful observations of the earth as it exists today. "

From http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm which is a Department of Energy "Ask a Scientist" site (full article is below).:


Proof for Evolution?
Author: Danielle Wilson
Text: What proof is there for Evolution?

Response #: 1 of 2
Author: Dr. R. Topper
Text: First let me say that I am not a biologist, but a chemist. So I
do not have a very detailed answer to your question. I first want to say that
scientists have a very special meaning for the word "proof." In fact, it is
so difficult to "prove" a scientific theory that I can honestly say that there
are NO pieces of scientific knowledge that have actually been "proved."
Scientists come up with a theory, and then they test it in as many ways as
they can, looking for evidence or information which will either prove the
theory to be impossible, or maybe verify some of the theory's predictions, or
change the theory a little. Most theories start out because someone has done
a lot of experiments, or a lot of studies, to look at something, and then they
make a general guess as to how that thing works. This is called a "theory" in
science. However, if we guess how things are based on what someone else tells
us, or based on what we read, that is not a "theory" to a scientist but a
"guess." After all of that, I guess you would like to hear some EVIDENCE
supporting evolution. One piece of evidence is based on our DNA molecules.
Every single cell in our bodies contains DNA, a special molecule which
literally makes us what we are. Our DNA is almost EXACTLY the same as gorilla
DNA, and is even closer to DNA obtained from fossils of ancient ancestors of
human beings. There is much more evidence, but I will let the biologists take
over.

Response #: 2 of 2
Author: Jim Murray
Text: Dr. Topper is right that it is hard to prove a theory beyond
doubt. This is particularly true in science because scientists can be very
skeptical. The approach many scientists take is to try to disprove a theory.
That way they know it is false. Evolution is a theory that has not yet been
disproved. It is always best to define one's terms before explaining
something. Evolution, in this context, is how life in general changes over
time. There is little doubt that life on earth has changed over time. It is
believed that 99% of all the species that have lived on earth, are now
extinct. Extinction of a species is one way in which life evolves. That
evolution occurs within populations of life forms on earth is well supported.
Scientists measure gene frequencies and protein structures in a group of
organisms, and then see how those frequencies and structures change over time.
Another term you might have heard is "natural selection." It is not the same
as evolution. Natural selection simply means that some individuals reproduce
more than others, and which leave the most offspring is due to forces at work
in nature. If a rabbit made a lot more noise than its neighbor, then it might
be more at risk of getting eaten by a lynx or an eagle. If it gets eaten, it
will not reproduce anymore. Natural selection has also been shown to occur in
nature in many instances. Charles Darwin proposed that this process of
natural selection might cause evolution in nature. And that this evolution by
natural selection could have been the major force that made so many species of
organisms. This was a controversial theory then because it was contrary to
what most people believed about how g-d created each species himself. Today,
most all people familiar with the evidence for evolution of life on earth,
accept it as the best explanation for the diversity of life. There are two
large lines of evidence to support this theory. The first is fossils. The
other is HOMOLOGY. All life on earth, according to evolutionary theory,
evolved from common ancestors. All life on earth is related to each other; we
are all of the same family. Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that
they do not use because they do not walk. They probably evolved from mammals
that did walk. Paleontologists have found a fossil whale called Pakicetus
that has more developed rear legs. Older whales should look more like their
ancestors if evolution is correct. Without evolution, we could not understand
why whales have hip bones. I should also emphasize that homologous structures
do not have to be used for the same purpose. Whale flippers and human hands
are homologous, but are used in very different ways. Another interesting
fossil is Archaeopteryx. This was a dinosaur that had feathered wings, like
birds. Bird and dinosaurs have a common ancestry. This fossil has teeth,
although no bird has teeth. It has the skeleton of a dinosaur, but the
feathers of a bird. It shows that there was a time when the difference
between birds and dinosaurs was not obvious. Birds are the only remaining
species from the dinosaur line. Homology is a complicated concept. It means
that two structures are similar because they are related genetically. If two
structures are similar but not related then they are only analogous. The
wings of birds and insects are analogous. They both are used to fly, but in
different ways. They are not related animals. Many differences between their
structures make this apparent to the keen observer. But the wing of a bat and
the wing of a bird are homologous. They both contain the same bones. Both
have an upper arm bone (humerus), both have a radius and ulna (lower arm
bones), and both have wrist bones and metacarpals and digits. They were both
derived from the same genetic plan. Look up homology in a biology text for
more examples. There is a growing mountain of evidence that supports
evolution. It will never be proven true because we can not know for sure.
But by using the scientific method, we can make a good guess, based on careful
observations of the earth as it exists today. A long answer to a short
question. Because evolution is a complicated theory. Keep asking questions.
And do not take anybody's word for it, go out and see for yourself!

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

As to refering to it as a myth...anything from any religion is a myth.

What's the difference between a cult and a religion? About 1000 years.

What's the difference between religion and mythology? About 1000 more.

[Nevada]

it still comes down to separation of church and state...creationism is based on faith or religious belief or belief that a supreme deity created us...evolution is not....plus as Kae stated...whose view of creationism do you teach? I have always like the Navajo stories personally

[Dragonfly]

As to refering to it as a myth...anything from any religion is a myth.

What's the difference between a cult and a religion? About 1000 years.

What's the difference between religion and mythology? About 1000 more.

Precisely! :D

Another quote I have heard...Christianity is the most successful cult of all time.

However, they are about to be trumped by the Mormons. :unamused:

[I'Cin]

it still comes down to separation of church and state...creationism is based on faith or religious belief or belief that a supreme deity created us...evolution is not....plus as Kae stated...whose view of creationism do you teach? I have always like the Navajo stories personally

As has been pointed out, almost all cultures have some form of "higher power creating the world/universe/life" so as long as "Christianity" or any other particular religion is not taught, the theory of theistic creationism should be as valid as a non-theistic big bang theory. (We could argue that the "higher power" caused the "big bang" as well . . .. but that's a can of worms for another day.)

Evolution and the big bang theory are based on scientists' BELIEF that their tests are correct - that they can definitively tell the age of fossils without error, that because the fossil record appears to follow a progression they can deduce the line of evolution, that random chemicals in space could just happen to form together to cause life, etc.. It isn't really proof - it shows evidence, yes, but just because every test you've run so far gives you the answer you expect, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have all of the information especially in an area where there is more and more information about the physical world coming to light everyday. But evolution and the big bang theory as science are not as cut and dried as "mix chemical A with chemical B to get reaction C." Theistic creationism certainly isn't, either. But a "belief" in theistic creationism should be just as valid as a "belief" in the science behind evolution and the big bang theory.

[Nevada]

but evolutional theory doesnt proscribe to a higher power as does theistic creationism..that is the crux of the matter...higher being general means religious belief..and I personally dont want anyone teaching my children a religion based belief...that is not what the teachers are there for...that is what home and houses of worship are for....now if they offered a comparative religion class or creationist class representing all religious creation theory as an elective I would probably tell my kid to go for it....they can make evolitional theory an elective but for those that dont take it will be dang near crippled educationally when it comes to the higher education facilities because they didnt take the basics.

[I'Cin]

But why should a theory that even a number of scientists agree hasn't yet, and may never be, proven be considered a "basic?" Because its "science?" Doesn't that put "science" back to being "religion" because its based on belief? The belief that because they haven't found anything to disprove it, its correct? I don't believe they've actually disproven theistic creationism either, its simply stated that it can't be proven. Two hundred years ago evolution couldn't be "proven" either. Oh that's right, it still can't. At that point, take evolution out of science class as well.

[I'Cin]

Are we having fun yet????? :D :D

Shall we switch sides? I can argue the other point of view as well. . . . . ..

I'Cin