1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, -clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. 2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us. 3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory. 4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy. 5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been. 6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or s that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, **** habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these s doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones. 7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions. 8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity. 9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive. 10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word. source
1. A mouse trap will not work without all of it's components functioning in the way it was designed, this is true. However, what you are neglecting to mention is that the mousetrap CAN function without all of its components. You don't need to read anything, just click the animations. View here. You also brought up the watchmaker arguement. A watch is not a reproducing living organism, so it can not breed, therefore it can not variate and be selected for in nature. What if it could reproduce though? How would it do it? The video below explains the possibility of a sexually active wristwatch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=PlayList&p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87&index=0 2. If DNA were to arise by 'chance' 6,600 years ago I would not give a second glance to evolution. Fortunately, it arose from RNA 3 billion years ago. I know how this generation dreads reading, so here are two videos to explain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc 3. No comment from me. It would be much easier to link you to a video. There are a few parts. Watch them and learn from them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg 4. Answer below. Spoiler It is often asserted by creationists that the evolution of life is impossible because this would require an increase in order, whereas the second law of thermodynamics states that "in any natural process the amount of disorder increases", or some similar claim. "Entropy" is frequently used as a synonym for "disorder". Of course, this represents a serious misunderstanding of what thermodynamics actually states. It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; that there are no completely isolated systems in nature, save maybe the universe as a whole; and that the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes; but still the creationist won't let go. There just has to be some reason why "order cannot come from disorder", and the reason must be in thermodynamics. That's the science that talks about order and disorder, isn't it? In fact, it isn't. Look through any thermodynamics text. You will find discussions about ideal gases, heat engines, changes of state, equilibrium, chemical reactions, and the energy density and pressure of radiation. Entropy and the second law are powerful tools that allow one to calculate the properties of systems at equilibrium. At the very most, there may be a paragraph or two somewhere in that thick book alluding to some kind of relation between entropy and "disorder". Writers of pop science books like to make the same kind of relation, and will ask their readers to consider things like the state of their rooms--tidy or messy--and compare the (supposed) decrease in orderliness of the room over time to the "tendency of entropy to increase". But what of entropy and disorder? Where does that identification fit into the structure of thermodynamics? The answer is, nowhere. It is not an axiom or first principle, it is not derived from any other basic principles, and nowhere is it required or even used at all to do any of the science to which thermodynamics applies. It is simply irrelevant and out of place except as an interesting aside. The only reason that that identification has been made stems from the different field of study called "statistical mechanics". Statistical mechanics explains thermodynamics, which is a science based on observed phenomena of macroscopic entities, such as a cylinder full of gas, in terms of more basic physics of microscopic entities, such as the collection of molecules that comprises the gas. This was a great achievement of nineteenth-century physics, led by Ludwig Boltzmann, who wrote down the only equation that connects entropy with any concept that might be called "disorder". In fact, what is commonly called "disorder" in Boltzmann's entropy equation has a meaning quite different from what creationists--and some writers of pop science--mean by disorder. The equation in question reads: S = k ln W. That admittedly won't tell the reader much without some background. Boltzmann's entropy equation talks about a specific kind of system--an isolated system with a specified constant total energy E (although the constant E does not explicitly appear in the equation, it is implied and crucial) in a state of equilibrium. It tells us how to calculate the entropy, S, of that system in terms of the microscopic particles (molecules) which make it up. On the right hand side, k is a universal constant now known as Boltzmann's constant [1.38 × 10-23 joules/kelvin, for the curious --Ed]. The function "ln" is the natural logarithm, and the argument of the logarithm function is the quantity W. W is a pure number that connects the microscopic with the macroscopic. Suppose the system we are looking at is a volume of gas inside an insulated container. The gas is specified to have total energy E, which is constant because the container is insulated so that no heat can enter or leave and rigid so that no work can be done on the gas by compression. There are roughly 1022 molecules of gas in a wine-bottle-sized container if the gas is at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. At any particular moment, each molecule is at a particular position inside the container and has a particular velocity. The position and velocity of a particle constitute its state, for Boltzmann's and our purposes. The collection of the states of all the molecules at any moment is called a microstate of the whole volume of gas. A microstate of the gas system is constrained by two requirements: first, the positions of the molecules are constrained to lie within the container (which has volume V); and second, each molecule's velocity determines its energy, and the sum of the energies of all the molecules must equal E, the total energy of the gas. An interesting question is, how many different microstates are there that satisfy these requirements at energy E and volume V? The answer to that question, provided we can calculate it, is the number W, which is the number sometimes referred to as the measure of "disorder". Right away it can be seen that there are some problems squaring this with the everyday concept of "disorder". For one thing, this number is not even a property of any single completely specified state (microstate) of the system, but only a property of all possible microstates--in fact, it is the number of possible microstates. And W is a very large number indeed. Consider the bottle of gas: moving any one of the 1022 different molecules in it slightly from a given position counts as another microstate. Imagine then moving them two at a time in all possible combinations, then three, then four... (As an aside, it turns out that the number of microstates, though enormous, is not infinite, as it might seem from considering that space is [so far as we know] continuous, so that one could consider moving a molecule [or adding to its velocity] by ever smaller amounts, racking up microstates with no limit. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics puts a lower limit on the difference in position or velocity that can be distinguished as a separate state.) The point of thinking about the number of possible microstates consistent with the observable macroscopic state is that the system never stays in one microstate for long. In a gas in equilibrium, the molecules collide with each other constantly; with each collision their velocities change and the state changes. This happens something like 1014 times per second for every molecule in a gas at normal pressure and temperature. The states are so randomized by all these collisions that that at any given moment, every single microstate is equally probable. This is a postulate of statistical mechanics for an isolated system at equilibrium. The collection of microstates is called a statistical ensemble; it is the universe of possible states from which the system draws its actual state from moment to moment. So in what sense can a system with large W be said to be highly disordered? Just this: the larger W is (the more possible microstates there are), the greater is the uncertainty in what specific microstate will be observed when we (conceptually) measure at a predetermined moment. It can be seen from this that a liquid has less entropy than an equal mass of gas, and a solid has less still. In a solid, the molecules are constrained to stay very near their original positions by intermolecular forces (that is, they cannot move very far without acquiring a large amount of potential energy and thus violating the requirement that the total energy be constant and equal to E), and have average velocities much smaller than the velocities of gas molecules; but they do vibrate around their average positions and so contribute some uncertainty in the instantaneous microstate. If the solid is heated up, the vibrations increase both in size and velocity and the entropy of the solid also increases, all in agreement with thermodynamics. In fact, the statistical definition of entropy reproduces all the results of thermodynamics. Does it make any sense to apply this to the arrangement of furniture and other items in a room in the classic pop science analogy? To do so, we would have to be sure that the situation fits all the postulates of statistical mechanics that are applicable to the statistical definition of entropy. The room could be assumed to be at least approximately isolated, if the building was very heavily insulated with no windows. We might think the room was approximately at equilibrium, if it was left undisturbed for a long time. But something is wrong here. There are an abundance of possible "microstates" of the system--as many as there are possible ways of arranging all the items in the room, and moving any item by less than a hair's breadth counts as a rearrangement. In principle, a rearrangement could be made without altering the total energy E of the system, unlike in a solid object. But in fact, there is very little uncertainty in the actual arrangement from moment to moment. The system stays in a set of very few "microstates" for as long as we can watch without becoming bored. What's wrong? The room is not truly in equilibrium in the statistical sense--the "microstates" are not equally probable, because they are not being randomized between "measurements". The statistical definition of entropy fails, and it makes no sense to talk about the thermodynamic "disorder" of the room. Creationists sometimes point to the complicated molecules in living cells as examples of highly "thermodynamically ordered" systems that need some special explanation, or that can only "degrade" from that highly "ordered" state because of the second law, etc. But the identification of a specified molecule with a well-defined state of thermodynamic "order" fails for a similar reason that the example of the untidy room failed. The argument goes something like this: "There is only one possible arrangement of amino acids that makes up a specified 'functional' protein (or only one possible arrangement of nucleotides that makes up a specified gene in DNA), while there are an astronomical number of possible arrangements that are 'nonsensical' with respect to the life functions of the cell." Therefore, the functional protein (or gene) is presumably in an extremely low-entropy state, as calculated according to S = k ln W. Is this true? This line of argument considers the overall macroscopic state of the system to be not a particular protein or a particular gene, but just "a protein" or "a gene", and considers the statistical ensemble to be the whole group of possible configurations of the same set of smaller constituent molecules. In other words, the actual "specified" macromolecule that is observed is not taken as the overall state, but only as one of the microstates. But this runs into the same problem as the untidy room did: the configurations of molecules in cells are not randomized moment to moment; the supposed microstates are not equally probable, because once in one configuration, a molecule tends to stay in that same one. In this case, it's because there is generally an energy "bump" that has to be gotten over in the process of converting from one configuration to another. At a fixed energy less than the peak of the "bump", a pre-existing configuration will stay the way it is. If the molecule is in the same supposed microstate every time we look at it, its state is not being randomized, and it makes no sense to apply to it a statistical calculation that assumes that the probability of observing that particular "microstate" at any time is vanishingly small, when in fact, that probability is near one. By the same token, if this line of reasoning were correct, one could look in one of the reference books where the thermodynamic properties of various chemical compounds are tabulated, and find that nearly all of them would have zero or very small specific entropies, because "there is only one way" to combine two hydrogens and an oxygen to form a water molecule, for instance. Of course, this is not the case. So how do we calculate the entropy of a molecule statistically? We calculate the number of ways it can vary--these could involve vibrational states, changes in overall shape, bond angle bending, and similar effects. These changes all leave the molecule recognizable as the same specific combination of atoms. By this calculation--the only one that matters--all the possible configurations have very similar entropies. There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better. It is worth mentioning that a statistical ensemble can also be defined for the case where the condition of constant energy is relaxed, so that energy can be exchanged with the system's environment, and another case still where both energy and matter can be exchanged. These ensembles are useful in many more practical calculations than the fixed-energy ensemble is, because only rarely do we study systems that are so well isolated that the latter can apply. Much more often the system under study is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, where everything has some fairly constant temperature and energy is exchanged to keep that temperature equal on both sides of the system boundary. When this is the case, the most important change is that the microstates of the ensemble are not all equally probable, and instead of Boltzmann's equation we have to use for the entropy the more generalized equation, S = -k Σ Pi ln Pi Here Pi is the probability of the ith microstate, and the Greek capital "sigma" (Σ) means that we take the sum over all the microstates. This formula was first written by another of the founders of statistical mechanics, the American physicist J. W. Gibbs. This is a more complicated expression, but has the same basic meaning as Boltzmann's formula: the entropy is a measure of the uncertainty in which microstate will be observed in the next measurement. By using the mathematical properties of probabilities and of the logarithm function, it is simple to show that if the probabilities are in fact all equal, Gibbs' formula reduces back to Boltzmann's original equation, as it should. Here's a quick quiz. Which of the following patterns is more "ordered" in the thermodynamic sense? ABAABBABBBBBABBAABABB ABAABAABAABAABAABAABA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ABABABABABABABABABABA Answer: the question is meaningless, because none of the patterns is an ensemble; all are possible individual microstates of some unspecified ensemble. Statistical mechanics, and by extension thermodynamics, has exactly nothing to say about the kind of order we think about intuitively in everyday life. Source. 5. About 1000 transitional forms here. This arguement is dated. Almost 70 years. 6. No, they're not. You can look at the transitional forms link to find any information you desire about the discovery of ape-human transitional forms. 7-10 are fairly ridiculous and have been refuted. Talkorigins.org can solve the rest. However, this debate isn't about whether evolution is true or not. This is about creationism.
Trying to put my personal bias aside, I can see teaching Creationism in the public schooling system as ethical. If only as a "possible" origin of the earth, it's only fair. It's truly difficult to continue here. See, I deeply feel that education should be 100% bias in Christianity's favor. However, it's quite difficult to argue that point of view in a "let's please everyone" society. Thus, I'm only able to pull the "well it's not fair to me" card. Some of you might be familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is legally required to be taught in most public universities. Why? Because the founder (who I hear is a Christian who merely wanted to make a point, but don't quote me on that) pushed it as something he believed wholeheartedly and felt that it was just as important as any other theorized origin of the earth. In summary, yes. I believe that it's only fair to give Creationism its fighting chance.
It is not legally required. Some - atheist - professors may speak about it out of spite, but it is not required and would not be studied in depth. If it was, then this country would be a very scary place to live.
I'd heard it was legally required. His letter said something to the effect of, "I'll sue your ass, if you don't." I could very well be wrong, though. My point was made, regardless.
No. It's hardly a point. In all fairness, creationism or rather "intelligent design" is attempting to bypass the scientific community and go straight to the classroom. How is it fair for evolution to be under constant scrutiny while religion is immune? How is it fair to teach children something as irrevocable truth, when it's origin derives from thousands of years of past down stories, none of which can be accredited or proven? If you want to teach creationism in schools - that's fine. Teach it in an individual class, devoted to all major religions and past major religions. The class must also be optional and Christianity should receive no more or less time than any other of the religions. However, it should not be taught in a science course and should not be treated as anything more than desert scribblings. Edit: And one more thing. It must be taught like a history class, not a religious ceremony.
Ideally, if we know that the Bible is based on real events, and many people have believed in it, it would make sense that these events would be real. It has never been proven that evolution is correct, nor has it been proven that creation is correct, there are many people who believe deeply in each. Sense most people are not educated about creation, it is psychologically hard for people to believe in it when science (which they are educated in) suggests it could be incorrect. For the evolution theory to be correct though, there still needs to at some point be some sort of divine being who caused the creation of everything in some way - meaning it is to some degree impossible that all religions could be incorrect, since at least one is right. Scientific studies are always done to some extent with bias from the one conducting them. You can find any result if you want to. Scientists discovered the evolution of animals, but have yet to be able to give concrete evidence that this evolution could have, or eventually did, lead to the evolution of humans. If it had, then we would have to be a lot like all the other types of animals, who came from the same place we did. There is a lot of disagreement here, and a lot of conflicting biologic studies, which say either that we evolved as a new kind of ape, or that we originated from the first humans, who were then created by a divine being. We do know around the time one of these events occurred, although there is no full agreement on which did, unlike with many other scientific studies, that can be proven. New scientific studies often disprove or reprove old ones, so we can never truly be sure what's correct, likewise, it is hard to tell which religion is right, with all the different beliefs there. Ideally, everyone should be educated about all religions, and every possible theories for those things within science that have conflicting studies (there are many, but evolution is one of the more controversial ones). If everyone was truly taught each religion, maybe from a believer of it, they would be able to develop a true unbiased belief on things for themselves. In the current state, there are some things, such as evolution that are taught in school,
Creationism should NOT be taught alongside science unless it is an optional course - being taught with other religions. What makes Christianity have precedence over Islam or Judaism? It's funny how selfishly those who promote teaching Creationism whine only with themselves benefitting; why Biblical creation theories, as opposed to Hindu ones? Religion and science are two completely different things. Science changes and adapts with the times, where religions are usually not open to new ideas as it goes against what they were told was true. You cannot test religion; you can test science. There is NO concrete evidence that there is a higher being; we cannot see too many examples of evolution as our lifespan, our millenium, even, is simply a snapshot in time, so insignifcant in the bigger picture - evolution has taken MILLIONS of years to occur. I think that there is too much opposition even from the religious citizens of many countries to allow Creationism to be taught in schools - it just isn't science.
I say NO!!!!! You send your kid to school to learn about science, social studies, math, etc. Not to learn about god creating every thing and you have to please him or you'll go to hell. That my friend is why they built churches. I personally am atheist [i believe in evolution].
The point is not whether or not a theory is right or wrong people. That's not the point at all. There is no evidence that absolutely proves evolution or any religion is right. Religions have books to tell their stories. That's basically it. Evolution has animals that have similar characteristics and DNA. That's also basically it. You have to keep in mind that both are actually taught in school, but not in depth. Other than saying "animals mutated over thousands of years to create us" or "there is somebody up in the sky that decided to make a few friends to worship him" i think it is wrong to teach BOTH in any further depth in school. If I want read the bible and go to church every Sunday, fine. If I want to read books by scientists that basically say the exact opposite of what the church does, fine. But don't tell me what to believe or how things happened when you don't know for yourself. That is not what school is for. Also, what if I'm a Buddhist? Or Muslim? Or believe in something else? It certainly would not be fair to not teach MY religion, when the kid's next to me is. MY QUESTION TO EVERY PERSON WHO BELIEVES EITHER SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS IS WHY. WHY DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL? JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT? ARE YOU TRYING TO SPREAD THE WORD OR SOMETHING? WHY DO YOU CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT I THINK? WHAT IS THE POINT OF TELLING ME SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE BUT HAVE NO PROOF FOR? SOMEBODY JUST ANSWER IT.
Who said that Christianity should be taught in schools? Your right, it shouldn't, because we should continue to allow freedom of religion. What should be done however, and what this debate is about, is creation should be taught in schools. That means that they would explain that there is a divine being, and he did create the first humans, and the first animals. Evolution would be taught as well, but only as what we know is right. Humans have evolved overtime, as have the different species of animals. We don't know how many different kinds of animals we started with, but they had to come from somewhere. Human behavior is very similar to animal behavior; we have similar DNA, among other things. However, man kind has always been different, we build things, and write, thing like the internet were created by us. The humans today evolved, but it is clear that they didn't evolve as some mistake from other animals. Dogs evolved from wolves. Overtime, the wolf population evolved as well. However, you can still selectively breed wolves and domesticate them to get a wolf population to evolve to be dogs. You cannot however, breed apes to speak a human language, build a house, or do other human things. For evolution and science as we know it to exist and be correct, creation would need to exist as well. Creation should be taught, not any specific religion, or very religious beliefs at all. And the red-because it is already taught in school that evolution exists, which it does. But at the time, this causes people to use science and evolution to explain everything. Creation should be taught as well, so they have a full understanding of it. The things you are taught in school are often thought of as fact, and applied by students to other things, whether they're true or not.
To be honest, if it offends people to talk about a religious belief in school, I don't understand how it doesn't offend people to be taught their beliefs are wrong and evolution is right. If you're going to bash something, give the other thing a fair chance. Creation in schools FTW.
Science isnt a relgion... relgion in my opinion is based on FAITH... believing something we cant prove... science is something that tells the literal way of life... i think in school they can teach what ever... they teach sex ed to kids n stuff why not other bliefs we learn about other places and other ppl why not other relgions... it to LEARN not to change ppl's mind... to make them aware of other relgions so that they will no something about it when they encounter a person from that relgion.... Creation can be taught to... its like plate techtonics... and all other things its an idea not COMPLETELY proven... n even if it was it wouldnt change relgion... SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL
We When you use the word "we" in these sentences above, I would like to go on record as not being include in that group. Evolution/Science as YOU know it to exist is an incomplete, foggy stab in the dark. I'm going to post two pictures to try and help bring you up to speed on the state of our understanding of Biology in the 21st century. I can't yell this so I will capitalize: WE HAVE THE FOSSIL RECORD TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION ALL THE WAY BACK TO SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS! As for the creation of the Earth, science has uncovered how it formed. Science has also uncovered how the moon was formed. Science has taken us all the way back to the moment just after the Big Bang where everything in the universe was condensed into an unimaginably dense and almost infinitely small singularity. If you want to debate what sparked the explosion I'm listening. But if you want to talk about man being simply placed here on the planet, just as he is, by an invisible, unknowable divinity and suggest we teach this to children in school, I'm floored. We have bones of all of the creatures in this picture(just visit a museum): This is OUR(me and science) understanding of how life has evolved through time and how the species are related: Please, since you want creation to be included along side reality, how do you suggest that it is laid out for kids. What would your scientific creation "tree of life" look like?
Makis, once again. You're drawings of things never seen before have no proof behind them. Reed my post on the Creation thread. Also, the question here isn't what's right or wrong. It's what should be able to be taught.
"WE HAVE THE FOSSIL RECORD TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION ALL THE WAY BACK TO SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS!" Lmao, that's the funniest post I've seen here yet. You absolutly do not have any fossil records to support this theory. 90% of what has been shown has been proven as fake, while the other 10% were not in tact, and had many broken bones.
The Creationsim tree!!!!!! You see, nobody actually says that we come from monkeys. Over millions of years slight adaptations formed, thus creating unique organisms. Human teeth have become less pointed in the past thousand years noticably. Who's to say that tails on chimpanzees didn't gradually diminish as different groups adapted to their terrain? They may have had no need for them in a savanna. Let's build off of the chimpanzees in the savanna scenario. The tails begin to diminish, as there are no trees that require absolutely perfect balance. Their toes don't need to be opposoble, so after many generations, they are more similar to our feet. Chimpanzees are highly intelligent animals, capable of using tools. The creatures eventually became more complex and honed to their environmet, beginning to no longer walk hunched, but develop an upright stance. This change, of course, takes thousands of years. The above scenario is incredibly plausible, showing just one example of a species that is gradually adapting. Now, had a God created us (Christian, Hindu, who cares which one), wouldn't he have made his creatures perfectly? I'd expect so. So then why are there so many small changes that keep occuring, such as our dulling teeth? I'm simply saying that there's no concrete evidence for religion. Religion isn't a theory (in scientific terms), and can't be built upon. This alone doesn't make it science. Evolution has supporting evidence and can be called a theory. I support freedom of religion. I also support freedom from religion.
let me take your attention to pastafarianism. if christianity pseudoscience should be taught then so should the flying spagetti monster. read more here: Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia edit: wow somehow i didnt realize this was the original 5 page thread on the issue. my bad if that's been posted already.