Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[cnm]

Where's your undeniable certainty?

No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.

 

[deanrd]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science is backed by the scientific method?

Please explain the scientific method.

 

[deanrd]

I’m pretty sure this guy would make a better Jesus.

And he’s white.

 

[alang1216]

hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???

Yes I did. Thanks for asking.

no you didnt,,,still asking,,,

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

 

[progressive hunter]

hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???

Yes I did. Thanks for asking.

no you didnt,,,still asking,,,

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

 

[OldLady]

Poor James

hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???

Yes I did. Thanks for asking.

no you didnt,,,still asking,,,

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.

 

[progressive hunter]

Where's your undeniable certainty?

No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.

“Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park

Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?

 

[progressive hunter]

Poor James

hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???

Yes I did. Thanks for asking.

no you didnt,,,still asking,,,

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.

dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it

but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it

 

[Wyatt earp]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Creation science is backed by the scientific method?

Please explain the scientific method.

Liberals came from monkeys

Conservatives was created


Not that complicated..


Facts are facts

 

[Taz]

"Creation science is backed by the scientific method". Not even close. Have a link?

For you, I have to provide stuff like this so you'll read, learn, and, heaven forbid, think.

So you can't back up your claim?

 

[alang1216]

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

Telling you anything has proved to be a complete waste of time. It's like giving a book to someone who doesn't know how to read.

 

[progressive hunter]

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

Telling you anything has proved to be a complete waste of time. It's like giving a book to someone who doesn't know how to read.

just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist

 

[alang1216]

just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist

All?? Who is this 'all'? Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country. Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.

 

[progressive hunter]

just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist

All?? Who is this 'all'? Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country. Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.

as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life


you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.

 

[OldLady]

Poor James

Yes I did. Thanks for asking.

no you didnt,,,still asking,,,

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.

dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it

but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it

I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

Poor James

no you didnt,,,still asking,,,

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.

dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it

but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it

I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.

there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground

 

[alang1216]

just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist

All?? Who is this 'all'? Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country. Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.

as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life


you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.

As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist. So what exactly do you believe?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Poor James

I did, you just refused to accept it. As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.

telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again

They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.

dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it

but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it

I think that's two different questions, isn't it? Lucy is our ancestor. She didn't make little green apples, though. I'm confused.

there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground

Lucy was just a small ape.

 

[MisterBeale]

The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .

Natural selection, artificial selection, hybrid breeding such as horse + donkey = mule, and epigenetics are part of creation science, too. It's variations within a species. It's the other principles of evolution that are questioned.

Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.

If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.

I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.


What are your facts, and where do they lead?

Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.

 

[james bond]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

No, we should not be teaching creationism as science. It is just a 'God of the gaps' fallacy.

The God of the gaps fallacy was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon as a warning for Christian scientists to not use God to support their hypothesis. It was stolen by atheists as an argument against creationists when explaining their big bang hypothesis. The big bang is impossible to happen as it violates the laws of physics and math (cannot divide by zero) in the natural world. What you are talking about is the evolution of the gaps. You have no explanation.

Instead, let's focus on how God created the electromagnetic spectrum on the first day. He would also have had to create space and time as he created the heavens and Earth. We are finding he created the Higgs field, CMB, Planck's constant, basic gases, solar wind, and more. He separated the light from the dark and called one day and the other night. How did the big bang do this? There is no explanation and this is just the first day. God started stretching the universe and spacetime started marching forward.