Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say yes... in regards to a class on religion or theology.
Not in a science class, except as a way of explaining the legal challenges that the Darwinian theory and/or modern theories have faced. One should not say that creationism is a scientific theory.
I don't recall Creationism ever being presented as scientific theory. It is a theory of the origins of the world, one of many. If the origin of the world is to be taught shouldn't students be exposed to all the major theories, be they based in science or otherwise? That is how it was presented at my school (primary & secondary)....long before PC ruled curricullum.
Creation should absolutely be taugt, right along with other mythologies such as Greek, Mythra, Aztec etc. These myths are an important part of human cultural development.
Creation should absolutely be taugt, right along with other mythologies such as Greek, Mythra, Aztec etc. These myths are an important part of human cultural development.
Man Caused Global Warming too. You left that myth out.
I think it deserves about 3 sentences on the one page titled "Christianity" in a World Studies class. Since Christianity is a pretty dominant religion on Earth, I think everyone should at least know the basics of the religion, including it's creation story. However, I also think equal time/attention should be given to studying the other major world religions, including their creation stories.
One does not necessarily negate the other. Linked is a brief interview with the lead scientist of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Colins. I read the book about a year ago. Very good, highly recommend it.
"So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."
Yep. This. Why is it not possible, or probable that a creator would use its own laws to create? But I think that the subject is on Christian Creationism, or Bible literalism. I for one would not have my children sit into a classroom to have a teacher try to teach this garbage with a straight face. One question from any six year old would shatter the lesson plan. " But teacher? why didn't God give us any evidence to believe any of that?" No thanks.
I voted yes and this is why: When I was in high school(public), I was fortunate enough to have a Biology/Physics teacher who taught us both. Ms. Stevens allowed us to learn and make our own choosing as to what we believed in without "cramming" either one down our throats. My mom and dad are also scientists(chemist/biologist). We as a family were able to seperate the science(and learn alot from it I might add) from our religion, while also going to church, bible school, etc. Ms. Stevens taught us the right way(in my opinion), and without hatered or guilt for believing in either one....
I know few scientific theories have MORE agreement than evolution. Conversely I don't know of any hypothesis that has been rejected by a higher percentage of scientists than creationism.
No scientific theory has 100% agreement. I also know that Faith and the bible are not important to scientists because so much of it takes Faith instead of data.
Quote:
The question itself is a red herring-- a distraction-- from the fact that creationism is not accepted as science and that evolution has become the accepted theory to explain human development.
Let me guess...the scientists who do not buy into evolution for man are the nut cases. As for creationism, I do not need science because I have Faith and I understand that does not work for everyone.
Quote:
Whether one person, or the bible, agrees or not, it IS the accepted theory, and unless disproven, should be considered fact.
How does one disprove what has never been proven especially when there is no consensus on any theory?
Quote:
TrueGritt, with all due respect, you don't believe it because you don't want to believe it and no one is going to change your mind. Your also not going to change mine... But the science is in favor of evolution. Period.
That is where you are wrong. I believe that God created a man and a woman and a basic group of everything else, from there I do believe that things have and do evolve. You cannot look at the myriad of humans and not believe that things evolve. Until there is a consensus on theories, who are we supposed to believe.
If we evolved from animals, where did the animals come from? Why do we not see evolution today?
Umm . . . we do.
Or haven't you heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
We are animals.
Oh, and in response to your next comment, a few down, we have and we are seeing humans evolve. For instance, humans evolved the ability to digest lactosewithin the last three thousand years, in response to the practice of raising cows and consuming their milk.
Evolution carries the belief that we evolved from something.
Creation carries the belief that we were just created, poof out of thin air basically.
Creation teaches that everything came from God.
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory teaches that everything started with a dot.
Each theory requires faith. The "dot" theory requires an overwhelming faith, since nothing preceding the dot (the singularity) can ever be explained by science.
Or haven't you heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
We are animals.
Oh, and in response to your next comment, a few down, we have and we are seeing humans evolve. For instance, humans evolved the ability to digest lactosewithin the last three thousand years, in response to the practice of raising cows and consuming their milk.
I actually don't think this is evolution. I believe this was just a mutation. To answer his question I don't think humans are evolving now because we don't need to. You/things evolve so they can adapt to their environment. We adapt to our environment now, by building tools, and buildings and things that help us live in this world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
