[Flipside]

Religion is hereditary, you get it from your parents, or, on most occasions this is true. In most cases, religion can influence a child much earlier in their life than science can, however, to a certain degree, I am inclined to agree with you, if you have reached maturity, and you have heard both sides of the argument, and you have reached your own decision, it should be respected.

[Deen]

I am not too concerned about them teaching Creation in science class, as long as it is high school, by which time kids will probably not blindly believe whatever they're taugh before thinking it over.

..although, with the dumb classmates you guys are describing I'm not so sure that can be relied upon.

I'm interested, does anyone know of any piece of evidence that supports creation theory?
Evolution has not been proven by any measure, but it does have some evidence that supports it, like mutations that a virus undergoes that allow it to survive in different forms for example?

Here are some arguments that I know of:

-The second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy) states that the level of order in a system will decrease with time if the system is closed from outside sources of enery. Therefore, since the presence of life is a higher order state of the world than the absence of life, something/someone must have come in and created life, an outside influence to the system.
The rebuttal here would be that the Earth is not a closed system and it receives energy from the sun. (However, if creation claims that God created the sun as well this gets deeper into the start of the universe)

-Another argument says that there have not been found many definite fossils that belong to a definite intermediate species between two others.
But I think that lack of evidence for evolution does not make creation true.

-And one more is the obvious complexity of living creatures and the absurdity that something like that could have happened all by itself.
To this evolutionist can only say that there is a tiny chance of a start of life from molecules, and over a billion years it had time to take place.

I am not saying that the creationism's arguments are bogus. They are not always easily dismissed.

But does anyone know of any other arguments for Creationism. (Besides 'It's in the Bible!'). I'm just wondering how a Creationism class would go, what would the teacher say to the class?

[Liberator]

Start here.  I can't vouch for the other content, but this list is a good start, as far as actual evidence goes and the sources are posted below the list.

Here is a slightly more in-depth version of the same list.

[Deen]

That's interesting, thanks.
I actually read a few books on Creationism for a project, they're very entertaining.

[Ghostavo]

Lib, you cannot be serious... search for those "evidences" in any search engine and see what you will find...

Does anyone else wonder why only in the US do people contest that creationism should be taught in school, even though they have far less percentage of christian population than say... almost every country in europe?

Anyway, off to packing again... hope to be back soon after the holidays

Porcaria do calor, espero não morrer á sede na Tanzania

[Liberator]

Ghost, the only reason you won't find that kind of information on "legitimate" science site is because they are on the opposite side of the issue 10 out of 10 times.

[Ghostavo]

Have you considered that most, if not all the "evidence" brought up by these so called creationist is flawed?

For example, an easy one, the number two on both sites (same site, whatever), the decay of the earth's magnetic field... the author of that theory extrapolated data regarding the field for 150 years to WAY BACK into the past amongst other things (like not checking other data), but this is the easiest one to explain. This simply cannot be done in science, and such a thing cannot even be called research let alone a work in ANY field.

[Ford Prefect]

The problem is that America takes religion too seriously. My impression is that in Europe, religion has become more of a benign cultural tradition, a case in point being Italy, where many schools actually have crucifixes on the walls, but at the same time, they have no problem with birth control or scientific biology. Americans just don't seem to take anything lightly.

[Flipside]

Well, I'll be honest, I don't mind discussing allowing the freedom of believing in either creation or evolution in schools, but let's not get into another evolution vs creationism debate? Please?

I suppose the best way to look at it is that it doesn't actually matter what you believe, you are here now. It only effects us because we make it matter. And nowadays, it becomes more and more a matter of politics, which is what is making it so important.

I would say that creationism is more a matter of RE than Science, in my opinion. Creationism trying to create it's own science is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, either the world is 4000 years old or it isn't, what scientists believe shouldn't affect you. But practical science can be taught, basic and organic chemistry etc without referring to 'creation' or 'evolution' at all. (Though a creationist may argue on the point of, for example the age of the bacteria in oil)

As I would say if the opposite were the case, freedom is freedom, that includes the right to believe in creation if you so choose. Personally, I would disagree, but that is what I so choose, theres no point hammering it any more than that.

[Zarax]

We don't have crucifixes on the wall, or at least we didn't until the teocons came to govern...
If there's a god i just pray him to get rid of our actual prime minister...

[Ford Prefect]

But practical science can be taught, basic and organic chemistry etc without referring to 'creation' or 'evolution' at all.

Chemistry can, but biology can't.

I accept people's right to believe whatever they wish, but that doesn't mean that society can afford to consider all points of view equally valid. What if I believe that Saturn is made of goat cheese? Does that mean that schools have to acknowledge the validity of my belief?

Zarax: I'm just going by an editorial I read in the New York Times.

[Flipside]

No, a school chooses what is most commonly accepted as knowledge, which is science, even in America that is still mostly the case.

I'm not saying that schools should bend backwards to accomodate everything everyone believes, what I am saying is that if Lib wans to believe in creationism, then what is the problem, he's old enough to make up his own mind, do you see yourself losing that many minds from the world of science because of it?

As long as the person is aware of both options, if they've already chosen creationism by Libs age, for better or for worse, they aren't going to want a career in science anyway.

[StratComm]

[rant]
Here's my stance on the issue (as a Christian).  Evolution happens.  Period.  I'll give you one example: If you want to argue that fact, go to a Russian prison and look at bacterial infections that are immune to ALL KNOWN ANTIBIOTICS.  Nothing like that existed 30 years ago; it had never been encountered.  That bacteria didn't come in from outside; it's only been documented there.  And it certainly hadn't been in the prision since the dawn of time.  Evolution happens folks, there's no contradicting it.  Why it happens (and maybe, maybe how) could be the subject of an interesting debate.  But to say that it doesn't (Creationism) flies in the face of not only good sense, it's strictly in opposition to reality.  Believe whatever you want, but don't try to argue it in my (or eventually my child's) science class.  If for no other reason than it's time taken away from actual learning, at an age where learning basic science is paramount to higher education.
[/rant]

The US education system is beaten up over a lot of things that are not actually the fault of the education system per-say.  There are isolated incidents of bad teaching, but that's not really a good reason to condemn the system as a whole.  The problem is that everyone - by that I mean teachers, administrators, etc. - are afraid to "step on toes" so to speak, of offending someone, because that can be a legal liability on the schools themselves.  Add to the fact that teachers can't effectively discipline a student who doesn't care (again, liability) and a rising number of parents who themselves don't care or refuse to discipline their children, and you wind up with the present disaster.  So I guess my point is it is societal.  I am a proud graduate of a completely backwater school, but I'm happy to say that I'm doing very well at a prestegious university with what I learned.  It's all in how much the student wants to learn, not in what his teachers want to teach him.

[Flipside]

It's all in how much the student wants to learn, not in what his teachers want to teach him.

All anyone will learn is what they choose to learn. Regardless of if it flies in the face of facts. The harder you push them that they are wrong and you are right, the harder their heels will dig in, because they want to believe in that something different.

Where the 'blame' lay in that, I cannot say, but who was it who, quite rightly said, 'I may not agree with your point of view, but I'd die for your right to have it?'

I hope it never comes to anything as extreme as that, but, the actual belief itself harms no-one, it is the knock on of government attempting to affect the single most important establishment that should remain neutral. Teach facts. The kids can choose to believe them or not.

Even if they don't believe, they can consider Science their own version of RE, learning about how the 'other half' live

[Deen]

Ultimately ignorance is what allows us to choose what to believe.

Originally posted by StratComm

 The problem is that everyone - by that I mean teachers, administrators, etc. - are afraid to "step on toes" so to speak, of offending someone, because that can be a legal liability on the schools themselves.  Add to the fact that teachers can't effectively discipline a student who doesn't care (again, liability) and a rising number of parents who themselves don't care or refuse to discipline their children, and you wind up with the present disaster.  So I guess my point is it is societal.  I am a proud graduate of a completely backwater school, but I'm happy to say that I'm doing very well at a prestegious university with what I learned.  It's all in how much the student wants to learn, not in what his teachers want to teach him.

With this I completely agree. I graduated from an American highschool after completing 10th, 11th, and 12th grades there. Before that I studied in Russian schools.

It was shocking to see how teachers will take special care not to let anyone see a student's grade but the student himself. How long has this practice of 'we don't want the other kids to know how dumb you are so you don't feel bad' been going on? What caused the introduction of this policy?
I was even more amazed how most teachers, when asking the class a question and getting a completely wrong answer could not say 'No, that's wrong.', but alway's replied with something like 'Well, not exactly' or  'Hmm, I hadn't thought of that'.
The whole system tries to upkeep the student's self esteem. You can be as dumb as a rock, but at least you feel good about yourself.
Another thing that I suppose is a result of this policy is that students are rarely called upon, someone must volunteer to answer. And it it extremely rare that a teacher calls someone to the board and has them solve something or answer questions.

Teachers are almost afraid of what the students may complain about or say about them. Sometimes it looks like a sheep teaching young wolves.

I apologise for a long post.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Deen
Here are some arguments that I know of:

-The second law of thermodynamics too bad that were not talking about thermodynamics (law of entropy) states that the level of order entropy != disorder, if it was disorder it would be called so and we wouldn't have had to come up with a diferent word for it, what the word means is the number of posable configurations, not disorder in a system will decrease with time if the system is closed from outside sources of enery wich the earth is not. Therefore, since the presence of life is a higher order  depends on how you define order state of the world than the absence of life, something/someone must have come in and created life, an outside influence to the system.
The rebuttal here would be that the Earth is not a closed system and it receives energy from the sun. (However, if creation claims that God created the sun as well this gets deeper into the start of the universe)

-Another argument says that there have not been found many definite fossils that belong to a definite intermediate species between two others.
But I think that lack of evidence for evolution does not make creation true.  and that's bull, we find ****loads of intermediarys

-And one more is the obvious complexity of living creatures and the absurdity that something like that could have happened all by itself. it didn't  
To this evolutionist can only say that there is a tiny chance of a start of life from molecules, and over a billion years it had time to take place.  no, we say there's a prety good chance that some sort of simple self replicateing molicule could come about via non-biological proceseis

I am not saying that the creationism's arguments are bogus. They are not always easily dismissed.
 actualy that was prety easy  

But does anyone know of any other arguments for Creationism. (Besides 'It's in the Bible!'). I'm just wondering how a Creationism class would go, what would the teacher say to the class?

[redsniper]

*applauds StratComm*
See, being Christian doesn't automatically make you a fundamental, creationist wacko.

[Bobboau]

and the selfesteem thing was brought in by our left/liberals, the idea is exactly as you said it's important to make sure you don't harm a child's selfesteem even if the have the IQ of a door knob.
it's stupid and breeds further stupidity.

[Thrilla]

What takes more faith:

Example A: A contractor built the house.

Example B: Through millions and billions of years, trees falling in the right ways, metal and ground erosion, extreme heat and pressure, lime, water, gravel, and even the weather conditions throughout millenia caused a structure to slowly form itself.

And this is just a simple house. Cell structure, molecular interaction, and even the human body are so much more complex. And what about the biggest question of all: How does intelligent and self-aware life come from proteins? We all know that something doesnt come out of nothing; common sense really, but how do you explain that the human race is the only being capable of conscious thought? Animals have been chewing grass and grazing the same way for as long as we can record, yet man has gone from nomads to putting a man on the moon.

Im just proving an absurdity that you defend evolution as a scientific theory, already proven and stamped fact but not allowing the idea of ID or creationism to even be mentioned. At least be consistent with wanting your theories preached.

[Bobboau]

and it's totaly diferent from life. for example a you have to expaine were the contractor came from as well.
example a is basicly normal reproduction. further your explaination for example b is totaly and absolutely unrelated to evolution and abiogenisis.

are you realy saying that an invisable magical man in the sky made the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago useing majic is somehow rational!?