Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

quote:

---

For example, evolution says that we descended from the primates, but have we ever seen a present day primate turns into human being?

---

Nor has anyone ever seen the interior of a star, yet no one doubts that it is powered by hydrogen fusion -- in fact, there are several models of the fusion process that are applicable to different types of stars. Ah, the power of multiple lines of consistent evidence.-

quote:

---

But we can conclude that from the "design" of the primate, God might have copied the same, did a little modifications on it and created the Australopithecus.

---

Yes, she might have. But why add an ad hoc hypothesis to account for phenomena that can be explained (and even predicted) by a theory that has been verified through multiple lines of evidence in many different fields using many different methodologies?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

My opinion is that creationism should be brought up, to put evolution into historical context.

---

Here in the U.S. we have another motive to teach creationism. Namely, it is a very important political issue in this country, and provides an excellent opportunity to explain what exactly is science and how it works, and how we can use science to eliminate alternative ideas.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Welcome to EvC truthsearcher.Here is a major mistake in that essay: This is incorrect. The major attempt to discredit ID consists in (correctly) pointing out that ID supporters have not been able to present a testable theory of ID that has not been tested and shown to be flawed. Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems have been shown to not be irreducibly complex, and even Behe has admitted that evolution can produce irreducibly complex systems. Dembsky's theories have been shown to rely on flawed assumptions, and, at any rate, are just the fallacy of personal incredulity with numbers attached.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

THe comparison of ID with SETI is also false.

---

There is another difference between SETI and ID. SETI is trying to detect signals that are a deliberate attempt at communication (one of the assumptions of intent that you mention). ID is trying to detect the evidence of design in things do not seem to serve any function at all for the designer (which is also the difference between ID and archaeology), a much harder task, it seems to me, even if some biological system has been designed.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

They need to pipe down, and move over, and bow to the will of the majority.

---

The tyranny of the majority? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Any society that has pretensions to democracy must protect the rights of the minority regardless of the wishes of the majority. That is part and parcel of the Western concept of "democracy" -- democracy does not mean (has never meant in modern thought) that the majority can make any decision whatsoever.This set of rights includes the right of religion (and the right to not participate in any religion). In the US, in recognition of the tendency of certain sects to use the powers of the state to their own ends, this traditionally means that the state shall not interfere with any person's religous practice or lack of it, not shall it serve as a sponsor for the promotion of any particular religious doctrine nor for the promotion against any particular religious doctrine.This is why that creationism cannot be taught in the US public schools. There is no evidence whatsoever in favor of any creation model remotely like the Genesis account. The scientific consensus is virtually unanimous on this; creationism has not been a viable model for over 200 years. The only reason any person would ever hold onto the creationism is because of their religious views, and it is not the role of the state to promote this kind of religious doctrine.Likewise, the theory of evolution has an essential place in the biology curriculum of any school, and cannot be removed from the biology curriculum of a public school in the US. The vast amount of evidence provides as much proof as any scientific idea can be proven that life has evolved over a span of three and a half billion years. The evidence that has been amassed in the past 150 years is quite clear on this. There is no reason whatsoever for any person to reject the theory of evolution, except for their own religious beliefs. And it is not the role of the state to protect peoples' children from basic facts and the clear, obvious inferences that can be drawn from those facts.Religious freedom means that anyone can engage in the religious rites that they choose and teach their children whatever they want. Religious freedom does not mean that the state is obligated to act as if inconvenient facts do not exist or that superstitious nonsense is the same level as physical evidence.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Christians can teach and believe whatever they wish. They just cannot use state funds or state facilities to do so.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

If you already knew that, then the previous post you wrote makes no sense.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

To you. It resonates well for me.

---

Then maybe you can explain it to me so I can understand it. You said: The clear implication is that you believe that some "minority" is dictating or trying to dictate what Christians should teach and believe. I responded: Then your response was: which appears to contradict your first statement. Perhaps, then, you can explain what it was that you meant.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

But I have already explained that the minority does have the legitimate expectation that its rights shall be protected from the majority, and that among these rights is that state institutions shall not be used as apologetics ministries, even if the doctrines were that of the majority.This is not the same as the minority dictating to the majority what they can teach and believe -- it is simply dictating that the rights of the minorities shall be respected and protected. This is a basic tenet of modern democracy.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

The basic tenets of faith are not apologetics ministries, sorry.

---

This statement is self-refuting, but I thought I would make sure everyone else notices it.-

quote:

---

If anything, the stories of man's past in the grey zone by educators are apologetics ministries.

---

Unless the "stories" are, like the theory of evolution, supported by a mind-boggling amount of good, solid evidence in a multitude of different disciplines confirmed by a wide variety of different methods. Then those "stories", like the theory of evolution, can be considered established fact. And then not only would those "stories" be allowed in the public classroom, but, like the theory of evolution, it would be a great disservice to the students not to include them in the curriculum.In fact, if the only objection to such well-confirmed "stories" were that they contradict the thoroughly debunked and juvenile creation myths of a particular religious cult, then not including them in the school curriculum could be considered a violation of religious freedom. Furthermore, if that particular cult had frightening totalitarian tendencies, it would be the duty of every person who respects liberty and democracy to make sure that these "stories" were not removed from the curriculum.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

Evolution also fits the description.

---

Which description? You have presented several definitions. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation.-

quote:

---

My point was....

---

It is becoming clear that your point is confused. By your own statement, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, yet you do not recognize this.-

quote:

---

...the support only goes as far as Eden....

---

The evidence supporting evolution has become stronger and stronger over the past century and a half, and now the fact that life has evolved cannot be disputed by educated, reasonable people. This is why the courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the public schools -- it is religious dogma; this is why the courts have ruled that the theory of evolution cannot be watered down with warnings -- to do so would be to give in to relgious dogma. It does not matter whether or not the majority accepts that creationism, Noah's flood, or Santa Claus travelling around the world bringing toys to all the good little boys and girls. The minority always retains certain rights in democracy, and in this country (the US) that has come to mean that they have the right to expect that state institutions will not present any religious dogma or tenet as fact or as an alternative to fact.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

Why make silly grandiose statements?

---

The overwhelming abundance of data support the statements.-

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is why the courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the public schools

---

​

In your opinion! I guess you mean in the US, as well. Well, then, should we conclude that all knowledge lays in the US courts? If they decide otherwise, then we all change our minds?

---

Do you have a different opinion? Do you disagree that the courts have rule in this manner?-

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is becoming clear that your point is confused. By your own statement, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, yet you do not recognize this.

---

​

It is becoming clear you have no point, let alone an ability to be cohesive.

---

Be careful. It is a fact that can be checked by reading your previous post that you have provided several different definitions for the words "faith" and "doctrine" -- this is by definition equivocation. On the other hand, you have just made a gratuitious insult. The moderators take a dim view of that here.-

quote:

---

It means not killing them or arresting them for having their different beliefs.

---

And in this country, it means not using public money and state institutions in support of purely religous doctrines.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

Seems to support if looked at in a no God perspective.

---

Since most Christians and Jews and many Muslims and people of other faiths accept the Theory of Evolution, this is false.-

quote:

---

Beliefs and assumptions, my friend, that is all.

---

The assumptions and conclusions of the Theory of Evolution is supported by fantastic amount of evidence in all the disciplines of biology and geology and with a wide variety of different experimental and observational methods.-

quote:

---

How many agree with the courts on a lot of major issues?

---

I would guess that in most cases, a majority eventually accepts the courts' decisions. It certainly seems the case in the evolution/creation controversy since a majority of Americans do not want creationism taught in the science classes.-

quote:

---

You have a problem with dictionary definitions?

---

No. The problem is when a person cannot choose a single definition and stick with it during her argument. That is the fallacy of equivocation. Look it up; it is a well known logical fallacy.-

quote:

---

I don't think the mods can help you there.

---

I do not need the mods help in identifying your fallacies. Your fallacies are rather easy to spot and identify. I only mentioned the moderators in warning you that they take a dim view of gratuitous insults. However, they seem to have decided to let yours slip this time.-

quote:

---

Even calling the majority heritage beliefs religious doctrines....

---

Religious doctrines are religious doctrines. Taking offense does not change the fact that creationism is a religious doctrine.-

quote:

---

...while advocating belief doctrines of your own is hypocritical.

---

If I were advocating belief doctrines, then you might have a point. However, I am advocating teaching children the current state of scientific thought that is backed by evidence. Taking offense does not change the fact that all the evidence indicates quite unequivocably that life has existed and evolved over three and a half billion years.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

Most muslims and Christians are nominal believers, and do not believe the koran or the bible in any meaningful way.

---

But they do believe in a god. Remember? You're comment was that evolution could only be accepted if one had a "no god attitude". These Christians, Jews, and Muslims show this to be incorrect.-

quote:

---

Most of which is assumptive, when it comes to beyond Eden.

---

Are you going to go on about that again, simple whisper?-

quote:

---

Words can have many applications, not just the one you love.

---

Indeed they can. That is why it is important to choose one definition and stick with it in an argument, not to interchange and stretch the definitions to win by "word games".-I take it that we are through discussing the rights that minorities retain even against the wishes of the majority?

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)