Creationism & Evolution In American Public Schools

[Didymus]

I nulled vote. Not all evolutionary teachings negate Creationism (if by that you mean a belief in the Creation story as to how the world began)

e.g.
I believe in the Big Bang, because we're getting to the point that if the universe is expanding, then it had to start somewhere. God sets the universe expanding now, why could He not have started it that way?

Edited February 3, 2007 by Didymus

[Guest JeffCR07]

An account of the natural origins of man (such as evolution) is not contradictory to Catholic theology, provided that first parents are provided for. Saying "there are natural ways to account for the event of man's creation" disproves that there is a God just about as much as saying "there are natural explanations to events in a fiction novel" disproves that it has an author.

"Creationism" cannot be taught in science classes anywhere simply because it does not fall within the realm of the natural sciences. Creationism is neither empirically verifiable nor falsifiable. St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with me, and did. In fact, St. Thomas argued against Bonaventure saying that it could not be proven even [i]philosophically[/i] that the world was not eternal. However, he argued, this doesn't mean that it cannot be proven that the world is not a [i]created[/i]. But the "Creationism" being argued about in the context of the intelligent design debate is so far from this position it hurts to even compare the two.

The fact is that arguments for the existence of God are not to be found in the empirical sciences, such as evolutionary biology. They are to be found in philosophy, which is the master of all the sciences. God will never be "found" in the empirical sciences, because the empirical sciences are concerned only with created (contigent) being, and what is more, they are only concerned with contingent being in the context of material and efficient causality. This precludes God from being a part of the empirical sciences [i]in principle[/i].

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Resurrexi]

[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with me, and did. In fact, St. Thomas argued against Bonaventure saying that it could not be proven even philosophically that the world was not eternal. [/quote]

[quote name='Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmas by L. Ott'] God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

Light of nature reason can prove the existance of God, but that is not science, thats philosophy.

[jeffpugh]

Seriously, I had a hard time with this poll because there was nothing on Intelligent design (though I had not realized that was what I was looking for until I came across it in this thread). It was based on two extremes placing people into one box or the other...
Anywho... There is something that is said about the 'great leap forward', that is going from 'ape' to 'human' in one big gap... could that be a "how" concerning Human origin (recall, it is said we have really close DNA to apes or w/e)? I found that very fascinating that our mitochondria originates from ONE woman from Africa... its a beautiful thing. But like Jeff said, no matter how hard scientists search, they will not be lead directly to God because that is a philosophical path. The tough part about all of this is sifting through the information picked up and compiling a well-informed understanding of our origin. Best to do some reading... dialogue like this is good.

[Urib2007]

[center][size=3][b][color="#0000FF"]Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer[/color][/b][/size][/center]

Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

[color="#FF0000"][b]Observed phenomena:
[/b][/color]
Most thinking people will agree that..

1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

[b][color="#FF0000"]Known options:
[/color][/b]
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

[color="#FF0000"][b][size=3]How to collect the $250,000:
[/size][/b][/color]

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

[color="#FF0000"][b]My suggestion:
[/b][/color]

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

[b][color="#FF0000"]*NOTE:[/color][/b]

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

[color="#FF0000"][b]Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
[/b][/color]
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on [color="#FF0000"]my web site www.drdino.com[/color]. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

1.The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.

2. The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

3. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.

4. The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

5. Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,
Kent Hovind

[RezaMikhaeil]

We've got to examine the public schools and our society as a whole...

1.) Most Sciences are not based upon facts but theories to explain what isn't known [psuedo science]. Currently scientists dont know what the planetary rings on Neptune are composed of, but we don't exclude our science teachers [and scientists alike] from speculating based upon past knowledge, and a hypothesis [an educated guess]. Now alot of people might argue this but creationism and evolutionism can't be proven from a non-bias side of the issue. I know, I know, those that believe in Creationism are going to say "the Bible teaches" "the church teaches" thus and so but that's injecting and invoking one's religion into the issue, in order to come up with a conclusion.

Therefore Creationism and Evolutionism are psuedo sciences, hypothesis' but not nessessarily proven with facts that are undisputed and not religious based.

2.) It's important to get specific on the particular school system that we're discussing because if we're discussing the school system of a secular institution [such as the United States Public School System], the situation is much different then if we're discussing the Islamic Republic of Iran's Public school system. I believe that the Public school system of the United States has an obligation to not be bias towards a particular religion among the others. The constitution ensures us the promise that there shouldn't be any religious discrimination or favortism of any sort. Being that neither Creationism or Evolutionism can be proven, I'd say that both should be taught and we should allow our students to make their own decisions. If parents would like to assert their religious doctrine onto their children and their own assertions, they should save that for the privacy of their own homes.

In regards to private schools in the United States, I'm going to say that they have the right [which is paid for as a private school] to include or exclude, whatever they'd like [thou the united states government would disagree]. If parents would like to send their children to an institution that limits the options of their children [which is what it does by excluding certain theories from science], then they have a right to do so. Now here is the problem with this, the United States gov. has a curriculum that is given to every school in the United States [including private schools] and it's the law for everything in that particular curriculum to be taught, therefore if Evolution is a requirement on the governments agenda, I dont see the private schools justified in rejected it from it's curriculum, no more then they are justified [legally] in rejecting alegbra from their students math curriculum.

As I'd stated, according to the original constitution, I believe that private schools are justified in excluding certain curriculum, but according to current laws in the United States, they are not, therefore I'm talking morally and traditionally. Now I'm also going to say that including evolution is a good thing and I'd encourage it to be taught. The purpose is to give students more insight, knowledge, wisdom, and options, allowing them to make their own decision, based upon what they know to be right or wrong.

Think about it from this perspective: If every athiest student in the world, was only learning about evolution in an environment that was in favor of evolution, they'd never get the opportunity to know otherwise. Back in my school days, when the topic of evolution and creationism was presented, it gave me the perfect opportunity to share about the truth of Jesus Christ, through raising my hand in class and raising objections or alternatives to their current thought process. Isolation never solved nothing, but intigration and communication does solve problems.

Reza

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1161064' date='Jan 10 2007, 09:21 PM']So far the majority of voters believe that creationism should not be taught as a science in public schools, but could be taught in philosophy and that evolution is not irreconcilably contradictory to Catholic Theology.[/quote]

I am not surprised at the votes against Creationism as not being taught as science in public schools.

First of all, Jugglary is at play I think. Who voted? Do we know which people voted for what? What if some Luciferians are checking out the website, and see this question, and they decide - hey lets vote - and skew the numbers. Of course, over the last couple of days, there has been this Big Bang (I hope you are really ready for the first and only big bang, as the heavens and earth are going to be destroyed in fire eventually) thread, and so there are those who want to say, hey, I have this big brain, and I'm really smart, and I've read all sorts of books on Evolution and the Big Bang, so whoever says it didn't happen is ridiculous. Human minds can not tell the difference between what is real, and what is vividly and repeatedly imagined. Case in point, for the past 2 years now, I have thought about how cool it would be to make a video game about a character named Kurall I made in City of Heroes three years ago, and soon - in four months, I will be taking 3d animation at college, taking a step towards this thing I have repeatedly imagined. With that being said - if someone keeps on telling you something is this way, and not that way, and that's all you hear, eventually you decide that is what truth is - without knowing the other side.

That is why I depend on the spirit and the Bible so much, because at least they state truth without controversy! Anybody can say what they will, I will not back down from what the Bible and the holy spirit declares!

I have a different theory, 6000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them as is. Then 5000 years ago, God was grieved by the evil of man, and caused a huge devestating flood that covered the entire planet and totally changed the the shape of the world, caused a whole bunch of animals to die which created the fossil fuels we now enjoy, started mountain ranges, and changed the land marks of the world, and then restarted with Noah!

So, I do believe Creationism should be taught as science in Public Schools, as an alternative theory to Evolution. Give them equal billing, and let the children involved decide. The whole reason we're not is because we live in a society Christians are not standing up and so we back away when the Atheists say - No Creationism! We don't believe in our first amendment rights! We should be able to give equal time for each. I don't really care who believes in evolution, as I know that God didn't do that, and soon, when Jesus comes back, we will hear from his lips everything was made 6000 years ago!

Sorry, this is an old thread, disregard the talk about the recent debate.

Edited May 17, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero

[Alycin]

Intelligent Design should be taught side by side with evolution, and I treated the poll as if it said ID and not creationism.

ID can be non-specific in talking about a Higher Power and doesn't necessarily have to cater to a certain religion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ID should not be taught, and it should be declared unconstitutional to do so. i used to say let each school decide, but then i saw all the evidence....
if they had an irreducibly complex example, that defies explanation, then sure let the locals decide. but, there's nothing that can't be explained with strong evidence that exits now, that most don't know of.
or, if there were tones of transitiona fossils missing, then sure.

i conded there's some gaps and questions, but nothing to me that would raise the eyebrow enough to just let ID be taught, as it's just creationism in a wolf's clothes. there is nothing wise about letting a bunch of kids speculate, in the name of being openminded, as if ID has just as much merit.


links for things on traisitional fossils

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html[/url]

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html[/url]

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url]

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url]

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05[/url]

[url="http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Extinct-Humans-62131.shtml"]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Exti...ans-62131.shtml[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution[/url]

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The implications for creationism
How will creationists interpret this fossil? Despite its erectus-like features, if D2700 had been found in isolation creationists would almost certainly call it non-human, given its small brain size and its similarities to H. habilis. The problem with this is that D2700 is a member of a population, and the largest skull in that group would almost certainly be classified as human by most creationists.

Because of the obvious humanness of the Turkana Boy fossil, and the fact that H. erectus brain sizes overlap the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes, creationists have nowadays almost entirely abandoned the old line (popularized by Duane Gish) that Peking Man and Java Man are apes, and now generally claim that Homo erectus fossils are a variant form of modern humans (ignoring the inconvenient fact that there are many obvious differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens).

Most creationists now place the line between human and ape fossils between Homo erectus (human) and H. habilis (ape), with some disagreement about which side of the line the habiline fossil ER 1470 should fall.

Now, however, in the Dmanisi fossils, we have a group of three closely related skulls which, in both brain size and physical characteristics, nicely straddle that line and resemble the fossils on either side of it.

The largest, D2280, resembles but is a bit smaller (780 cc) than Homo erectus fossils such as the Turkana Boy and ER 3733. The next largest, D2282, is very similar to it but considerably smaller (650 cc), below the previously smallest known erectus (750 cc), and in the middle of the H. habilis range. The last Dmanisi skull, D2700, is even smaller (600 cc) and also more primitive, containing a mixture of erectus and habilis traits.

In short, it's hard to imagine a more convincing series of transitional fossils.[/quote]

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

ID could be taught in a philosophy class. how we evolved to be so complex, is a good question. but, as far as science... not i said how we *evolved*, there's evidence for transitions etc, means there's explanations that are adequate. adding ID, even if not catering to anyone, is jumping the gun.... automatically assuming something that has no direct evidence for it. evolution has tons and tons of evidence.

there could be explanations for things we dont know, looking at the evidence, there's nothing that alarming as if ID must be considered as an alternative.... all that means is we do more research and act scientifically, not consider whether ID is the answer.

you don't say, let's teach that maybe God or a higher power etc is the answer to quantum mechanics quandries, etc.

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

DNA for transitional fossils? they can trace a lot of things with DNA, i'd wonder if they could for this.

DNA always seems to pop up as a question in looking at things... like eucharistic miracles etc.

but no one seems to be on the ball yet to look that i can see on the net.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you can believe that the earth was made in six days etc, despite evidence, but that cannot be taught in schools.

i'm just stating this, cause people shouldn't feel voting against teaching it means you can't believe it too.

Edited May 18, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Alycin]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1532000' date='May 17 2008, 11:26 PM']you can believe that the earth was made in six days etc, despite evidence, but that cannot be taught in schools.

i'm just stating this, cause people shouldn't feel voting against teaching it means you can't believe it too.[/quote]

ID is NOT teaching that the earth was created in 6 24-hour periods.