Is Creationism Still Being Taught in Public Schools?

[ebits21]

The teaching of the theory of evolution asks that people believe that there once was an extremely small, extremely hot, and extremely dense area of matter and space that expanded and literally turned into you and me. A really hot dense ball of quark soup just turned into people. Now I find it hard to argue that this actually didn’t happen, it probably did happen. However, the argument comes down to whether this happened “by accident” or perhaps “by chance” or whether it was somehow “guided”, but it still takes a leap of faith in either case in my opinion. You can describe it as many baby steps as you want but it still takes a significant leap of faith.
I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

Do you learn that apples fall to Earth because of gravity OR MAYBE little forest spirits want to return their spiritual energy to Mana at the center of the Earth. Or maybe an invisible Sasquatch tied invisible ropes to all the apples in the world and pulled them towards his lair at the center of the Earth.

No, not every theory relies on "faith" in the same way. There's infinitely many theories on every topic, you cannot teach them all, and there's no point on teaching incorrect ones. Further, a theory in science means something very different than layman theories.

Science relies on testing theories you can prove wrong, then seeing if they can pass that test. If they don't (creationism) they're rejected because they don't describe reality.

The difference in science is that any "faith" in an explanation is continually tested against what actually happens. In addition, predictions of those explanations are made. If evolution is true you expect x, y, and z consequences. So at any time that faith could be proved wrong.

This is a very large part of what actual biologists do. And guess what, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's has been tested and verified in numerous ways and all of those ways converge on the same explanation. When evolution was proposed nobody knew of genetics, nobody knew how to read geological strata and date rocks, nobody knew how truly old the Earth is. ALL of those things helped to further verify the theory.

And more than that, every single day new papers are published that continually verify evolution in new ways.

The ONLY argument that you can make for creationism is one in which the "creator" somehow created the laws that put the universe in motion, and a consequence of those laws is evolution and life.

You can't test that with science, ever. I wouldn't believe that either based on logical arguments and the study of human history, but that's a separate matter.

 

[humanino]

I do not think there is any reason to argue actually. According to people who would argue like

[nothing new or worth reading here]

we were thrown out of the garden of Eden because we opened our eyes. There is nothing really new or original about this, Prometheus was also punished. They prefer the comfort of an all answering omnipotent superbeing. What is funny to me, is that they often overlap with people who complain about "big governments" and "their freedom", but they fail to realize that freedom is not about drinking beer while watching football on a giant TV screen. Rather, freedom begins by knowledge and facing the responsibilities going with it, such as being an informed voter. Explaining to them this last sentence would be more effective than arguing with them about evolution or the big bang theory.

 

[caffenta]

I don’t think one theory or another should be forced on people, just present the evidence in all cases and let people decide for themselves.

Regardless of what you think, evolution is science and therefore it should be presented in science class. Creationism is not science, and it has no place in science class. It should be presented in Sunday school where it belongs.

Scientists don't go around saying that evolution should be taught in Sunday school, do they?

 

[Gokul43201]

I disagree. I think that the theory of the evolution of life lies within the theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory of the evolution of life is a sub-chapter in a broader theory of the entire evolution of everything. How can you claim to know the theory of life without knowing the theory of pre-life?

How can one claim to understand the structural properties of a chair without knowing the origin of mass?

Since this has now regressed from disputing not only the theory of [biological] evolution, but mainstream cosmology as well, I recommend (to the Mentors), that this thread has gone far off the deep end, and needs to be put to rest.

 

[Evo]

Agreed, closed.

 

[ZapperZ]

I will remind relevant participants of the PF Rules that you have agreed to. If you make suggestions or proposals, especially on a scientific issue, that are not backed by valid evidence, such as peer-reviewed journals, you are in violation of such rules.

This thread is locked and, pending review, warnings/infractions may follow.

Zz.