Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[BTGBullseye]

Well, seeing as we're on to topics that can't be discussed comprehensively without bringing religion into it, I thought this might be a good controversy to debate...

 

Most public schools are teaching the Evolution theory as fact... It doesn't have even one single shred of supporting evidence, which is why it's still theory; however as I went through public school, I know that they portray it as a fact of life. Linked with this is the carbon dating method.

 

Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.

 

Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.

 

There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

 

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and his family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

 

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides more evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

 

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another is that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were older.

 

Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

 

We’ve listed five faulty assumptions here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias.

 

If you’ve ever been part of a medical study, you’re probably familiar with the terms “blind study” and “double-blind study”. In a blind study, using carbon-14 dating for example, a person would send in a few quality control samples along with the actual sample to the laboratory. The laboratory analyst should not know which sample is the one of interest. In this way, the analyst could not introduce bias into the dating of the actual sample. In a double-blind study (using an experimental drug study as an example), some patients will be given the experimental drug, while others will be given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill). Neither the patients nor the doctors while know who gets what. This provides an added layer of protection against bias.

 

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.

The Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could easily tell which specimen was from the Shroud. This would be like taking a piece of wood and two marbles and submitting them to the lab with the instructions that “one of these is from an ancient ponderosa pine, guess which.” The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories. Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data.

 

Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

 

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

 

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that it was designed to support.

 

If you're issue is with the "biblical" parts of this, the flood is scientific fact, (all real scientists have accepted it, and so have the kooks that aren't blatantly kooks) and the bible's version of history (apart from god and the rising from the dead stuff) is widely accepted, even amongst evolutionists.

 

 

Now for the fossil record argument... (not the carbon dating part, since that's already covered)

 

There has never been any supporting fossils, or recorded mutations that would even come close to being a link between humans and any other creature. Look it up, it's common knowledge. Seems like there should be at least ONE skeleton or bone to support evolution if it actually happened... I mean seriously, not even one generation of human/ape hybrids?!?

 

 

I have just presented an extremely small selection of disproving evidence for the evolution side, and why evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. (bad science all around) Anyone willing to try disproving creationism with as much evidence?

[Alyxx Thorne]

I am a creationist and I never take evolution as fact. It's a theory.

[Michael Archer]

Most public schools are teaching the Evolution theory as fact... It doesn't have even one single shred of supporting evidence, which is why it's still theory

 

I am a creationist and I never take evolution as fact. It's a theory.

 

Ok...let me straighten one thing out first.

 

Just because it's called the theory of evolution, does not mean there is doubt in it. A scientific theory is a model to explain how things work in real life, based on facts, observations and the perception of reality. What about gravitational theory? Does that mean it doesn't exist? I guess it doesn't according to you.

 

Using this logic, I can pretty much ignore that entire thing you copy-pasted, since it is all based on atomic theory. Carbon dating isn't perfect; that's why when you see a date on something, it's not like a milk carton expiry date; they usually give a few thousand to a million years of error.

 

I am a creationist and I never take evolution as fact. It's a theory.

 

So is creationism. So that means you shouldn't take that as fact either.

 

You're actually helping my point, by saying you'll never take it as fact. This means that you can be shown tremendous amounts of evidence and have evolution proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, yet you would still believe the opposite. This a complete rejection of objective reality, and that's something totally different that we can talk about on a later day.

 

Most public schools are teaching the Evolution theory as fact... It doesn't have even one single shred of supporting evidence.

 

Really? DNA seems like a big one. I challenge you to find a biologist who says that the discovery of DNA actually partially refutes the theory of evolution.

 

There has never been any supporting fossils, or recorded mutations that would even come close to being a link between humans and any other creature. Look it up, it's common knowledge. Seems like there should be at least ONE skeleton or bone to support evolution if it actually happened... I mean seriously, not even one generation of human/ape hybrids?!?

 

O RLY? Click me!

 

If you're issue is with the "biblical" parts of this, the flood is scientific fact, (all real scientists have accepted it, and so have the kooks that aren't blatantly kooks) and the bible's version of history (apart from god and the rising from the dead stuff) is widely accepted, even amongst evolutionists.

 

Do you have a cite for this claim?

 

I have just presented an extremely small selection of disproving evidence for the evolution side, and why evolution shouldn't be taught in schools.

 

No you haven't. The text you provided has no citations, nor any scientific references. They accuse the carbon daters as "biased" while their entire site is dedicated to disproving and ridiculing scientists.

 

But even if you did find a small inconsistency, that doesn't mean we throw out the theory; that's not how science works. As we obtain more knowledge and facts, the model "updates", similar as to how you download computer program updates. Does this mean the older program has no use and was completely wrong?

 

We should never teach creationism in schools. Evolution has withstood the test of time and has been scrutinized by the scientific community to death without being ridiculed.

It is supported by years of facts and evidence while creationism is supported only by blind faith. (LOL, I just noticed the E=MC^2 in the cartoon. What's that doing there?)

[Alyxx Thorne]

My point is that even if evolution might seem more likely than creationism to most people, it all boils down to what people choose to believe. I have nothing against believing in evolution but to me it just doesn't make sense. I have to believe what I find most logical to me. What others believe is their matter personally.

 

I cannot prove that God has created the world, but that's what I believe because it's just what makes most sense to me personally. I can only speak for myself.

[Bjossi]

Michael explained my thoughts quite well, no need to repeat it. I personally find evolution lightyears more believable than creationism, I simply do not understand how grown up adults can find creationism making more sense. To semi-quote what Bill Maher once said: it seems that when religion is being discussed people just throw all logic and common sense out of the window, even the more intelligent people.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Michael explained my thoughts quite well, no need to repeat it. I personally find evolution lightyears more believable than creationism, I simply do not understand how grown up adults can find creationism making more sense. To semi-quote what Bill Maher once said: it seems that when religion is being discussed people just throw all logic and common sense out of the window, even the more intelligent people.

People are different and each person has their own perception of reality. Maybe evolution makes more sense than creationism to you but it might not to someone else, like me. In the end it depends greatly on the person and how that person perceives the world.

[Michael Archer]

People are different and each person has their own perception of reality. Maybe evolution makes more sense than creationism to you but it might not to someone else, like me. In the end it depends greatly on the person and how that person perceives the world.

 

Oh, ok. I didn't understand your point of view.

 

You're a subjectivist. You believe that it's up to people to decide what reality is. I'm talking as if no one decides what reality is; reality just is, and it's up to people to perceive and understand it using reason and logic. You know, the objective theory of reality and values.

 

There's a lot of problems with the subjectivist theory, that I won't go into in this thread. You should read the torture scenes in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. George Orwell does a great job in exposing flaws in subjectivism.

[Waldo_II]

OPs entire post made me lose every shred of hope I had in humanity.

 

Evolution as not having "a single shred" of evidence

No evidence means it is only a theory

Great flood accepted as fact

Those that believe in the flood are the real scientists

No fossil records supporting evolution

Young Earth

 

Oh god, my keyboard is covered in puke, and my puke contains blood. I'm being infected over the Internet.

[Axeldeath]

But creationism isn't based on fact, it's based on faith. The basis of faith is: If you believe something is real, no matter how much evidence proves you wrong, it is real. There is no suchthing as a religion based on facts because there is not a single shred of evidence that suggests that there is such a thing as a deity.

[Alyxx Thorne]

People are different and each person has their own perception of reality. Maybe evolution makes more sense than creationism to you but it might not to someone else, like me. In the end it depends greatly on the person and how that person perceives the world.

 

Oh, ok. I didn't understand your point of view.

 

You're a subjectivist. You believe that it's up to people to decide what reality is. I'm talking as if no one decides what reality is; reality just is, and it's up to people to perceive and understand it using reason and logic. You know, the objective theory of reality and values.

 

There's a lot of problems with the subjectivist theory, that I won't go into in this thread. You should read the torture scenes in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. George Orwell does a great job in exposing flaws in subjectivism.

Nobody's perfect. I'm just being honest about what I believe in.

[BTGBullseye]

So far I haven't seen any proof to actually disprove anything I submitted.

 

There is no supporting evidence that those bones belonged to the bipedal species imagined in the picture, nor any evidence to support it's age.

 

You submit a blind test to a C14 lab, one of a bone/tooth that has a physical record of dating back to say the 1000's, and a bone/tooth that was extracted between 200 and 500 years ago, and was preserved in the same fashion. Don't tell them anything about your "suspected" ages, and see if it's accurate. Don't forget to reduce it first so it's not as obvious which is older.

 

Show me evidence that there was no flood... The flood is generally accepted, if not necessarily in the bible's specific depiction. (eg, the Black Sea Deluge) It also would have a similar effect on the C14 as was described. Also, show me any evidence that disproves the historical parts of the bible, since the only evidence I've seen (even on TV) has been linked back to the bible as supporting it. (like the fact that Jesus was an actual living man, or that the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrew people who later escaped without significant fighting after several major catastrophes occurred)

 

I would like you to look at this for the definition of "theory": http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm (this was the only source I could find that was not written by a self-proclaimed evolutionist, which would obviously bias the source)

Essentially if enough people supported the THEORY of a flat world, it would be as accepted as the THEORY of evolution is today, and is just as likely to be disproven. (look at history, flat world theory was denying that there was any possibility of a round world and ridiculing the "nonbelievers" in almost the same way as evolutionists do to creationists today)

 

About DNA: I challenge you to find any evidence that one of the most complex information storage systems in existence proves evolution. That's kind of like saying "if I throw this box of random non-corrodible parts at a rock on Mars and wait a couple trillion years it'll eventually become a full computer system with Windows 7 and 2 pirated games installed". (if you're supporting the mainstream theory of evolution being taught in schools these days that is)

 

As for the gravity quip, it is the LAW of gravity, not the FACT of gravity. (The previous link also explains that difference)

 

Linking to Wiki is tacky, can't you find anything that was made by a non-anonymous person? How about going in and quoting directly from the source unlike Wiki? (they rarely take quotes in-context when dealing with things of this nature, just like *most* "Christians" that want to convert you)

 

Lastly, you said there's no doubt, but so far there is at least 1 other person who doesn't believe in evolution, and that outright disproves that point of view, as does the world population of Catholics. (16.68% of the world's population according to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html after adding up the percentages and populations)

 

There is not currently available any way to prove any method of origin, only several theories and hypothesis that fit the evidence we do have, and some that do not. Guess we'll have to wait for time travel to find out for sure...

 

 

In response to Axeldeath's post: Your definition of "faith" is wrong. Faith is believing in something that can not be proven or disproven using any of our senses.

As for evidence, nothing has disproven the existence of a "supreme being". All the "evidence" merely supports that there is no evidence either way, hence a matter of faith.

Logic suggests that evolution is so unlikely that it should be dismissed until further evidence is provided, even if there should be a period of no theories available on the subject, just so you don't accidentally get the "flat world theory" thing going again.

 

 

If you want to throw out creationism because of it's basis in religion, go ahead, but don't put something even more moronic in it's place just to fill the gaps.

[Axeldeath]

In response to Axeldeath's post: Your definition of "faith" is wrong. Faith is believing in something that can not be proven or disproven using any of our senses.

As for evidence, nothing has disproven the existence of a "supreme being". All the "evidence" merely supports that there is no evidence either way, hence a matter of faith.

Logic suggests that evolution is so unlikely that it should be dismissed until further evidence is provided, even if there should be a period of no theories available on the subject, just so you don't accidentally get the "flat world theory" thing going again.

 

 

If you want to throw out creationism because of it's basis in religion, go ahead, but don't put something even more moronic in it's place just to fill the gaps.

 

So in your opinion the lack of ANY evidence of an almighty deity is equal to the larger amount of evidence that evolution is how humans have eventually populated the Earth. No matter how little a chance there is ( we'll say that there is a 0.000000000000000001% that any sort of theory relating to evolution is correct) the likeliness of an omnipotent god based on evidence is 0% therefore any percentage over 0% is infinitely liklier than creationism. It's nice how you Creationists only use science when it could make it seem as though your correct, yet when shown any evidence that rejects it you mearly toss it away. The same thing happened when they found 4000 year old human fossils near where the Garden of Eden supposedly was, apparently this meant that the Garden of Eden existed, even though human skeletons are found everywhere.

Creationism is an embarrasing relic from the past we'd be a lot better off without.

[BTGBullseye]

So in your opinion the lack of ANY evidence of an almighty deity is equal to the larger amount of evidence that evolution is how humans have eventually populated the Earth. No matter how little a chance there is ( we'll say that there is a 0.000000000000000001% that any sort of theory relating to evolution is correct) the likeliness of an omnipotent god based on evidence is 0% therefore any percentage over 0% is infinitely liklier than creationism.

There is no proof either way, which leaves the percentage chance undefinable in both cases. Evolution is a faith just as much as any form of Christianity...

 

It's nice how you Creationists only use science when it could make it seem as though your correct, yet when shown any evidence that rejects it you mearly toss it away.

I could say the exact same about evolutionists.

 

The same thing happened when they found 4000 year old human fossils near where the Garden of Eden supposedly was, apparently this meant that the Garden of Eden existed, even though human skeletons are found everywhere.

4000 years old is about 2000 years after the flood... (or right at the time of the flood, I keep forgetting if it was at 2000BC or 4000BC) If anything it just says that people died in that location a long time ago. So what does that have to do with anything?

 

Creationism is an embarrasing relic from the past we'd be a lot better off without.

Well over a billion people disagree with you on that one. (I already posted my numbers supplier)

[Axeldeath]

Creationism is an embarrasing relic from the past we'd be a lot better off without.

Well over a billion people disagree with you on that one. (I already posted my numbers supplier)

 

And as there is over 2 billion people on the Earth.... the same amount reject your idiocy?

 

I lol at people who say the world is 6000 years old, you guys must be retarded

 

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about, it frustrates me because you have no evidence to prove that creationism is anywhere near as likely as evolution. Evolution simply means to adapt to one's enviroment, If I spend hours out in the sun working every day do I not get sunburn? After being burnt many times do I not become darker in skin colour so the sun's burn doesn't affect me as much as if I had a pale skin colour. If there was no evolution why would countries that have high temperatures have native people with a dark skin colour they EVOVLED with to adapt to their unique enviroment.

 

take for example a person who thinks the Earth is round, I think of Creationists the exact same way, they're ignorant of the evidence either wilfully or just by lack of eduacation. Flat Earth and Creationism are a fair comparison- The facts support Flat Earth/ Creationism theory equally. The same percentage of scientists support Flat Earth Theory as there are scientists that support Creationism. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean " God " made it. "Against logic there is no armour, like ignorance." -Napolean Bonaparte

 

Okay so here is the actual meaning of theory because I can't stand you calling Creationism a theory... A theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena " note: not supernatural ", capable of predicting future occurences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment, or otherwise falsified by imperial observation" It's not a "guess" or an "idea" like Creationism. Evolution is a theory because it is testable, Creationism is not testable; therefore it is not a scientifically valid theory for that reason.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXF7YUyU2c&feature=related You watched this video then created a thread on here.... I hate you

Edited March 22, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Axeldeath]

This says it all

[Axeldeath]

OMG Scientists SOOOO DOOOO support Creationism because it's obviously factual. You know that there are 4x as many scientists that reject the holocaust happened compared to scientists that believe creationism is the possible starting point of life.

[Bjossi]

Wait, what happened here? Did someone delete his/her posts between Axeldeath's?

And Axeldeath, I had to fix two misquotations in your earlier posts. Putting words into the wrong person's mouth is the one thing you do not want to do in a forum like this. Be careful in the future.

[Michael Archer]

So far I haven't seen any proof to actually disprove anything I submitted...Show me evidence that there was no flood

 

I'm sorry? You created the thread. You are contradicting decades of science and research. You brought up this topic.

 

I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you. It's not the other way around.

 

The flood is generally accepted, if not necessarily in the bible's specific depiction.

 

Again: Do you have a cite for this claim?

 

If you're starting the topic, you have the burden of proof. Don't throw around "facts" without citing them first, please.

 

I would like you to look at this for the definition of "theory": http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm (this was the only source I could find that was not written by a self-proclaimed evolutionist, which would obviously bias the source)

 

No, it wouldn't. If you take a statistics course in high school, you'll learn that going into the field of statistics requires years of training and education. One of the things they learn is to eliminate bias.

 

It's ridiculous to say that because what they believe, it's not true, or biased. What's the alternative? Obviously, not a creation "scientist", so that leaves us with agnostic. Agnostics believe there is no objective reality and that all theories are equally valid; they wouldn't be able to argue any point.

 

But the person who wrote the article? I could say her Ph.D is in biomedical sciences, therefore she has no business to say what a scientific theory is, but I won't.

 

All I will say is that she's taught graduates and college biology students. The entire study biology depends on evolution being true; I highly doubt any good university would hire her if she didn't believe in evolution.

 

But that doesn't matter, like I said.

 

About DNA: I challenge you to find any evidence that one of the most complex information storage systems in existence proves evolution. That's kind of like saying "if I throw this box of random non-corrodible parts at a rock on Mars and wait a couple trillion years it'll eventually become a full computer system with Windows 7 and 2 pirated games installed". (if you're supporting the mainstream theory of evolution being taught in schools these days that is)

 

Yup. DNA definitely supports evolution. How does it not?

 

The rest of the paragraph is just one big scarecrow argument. I won't entertain that.

 

Lastly, you said there's no doubt, but so far there is at least 1 other person who doesn't believe in evolution, and that outright disproves that point of view, as does the world population of Catholics. (16.68% of the world's population according to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html after adding up the percentages and populations)

 

What exactly are you implying? Are you saying that the number of people who believe in a theory somehow impacts the credibility of the theory?

 

I hope not.

 

There is not currently available any way to prove any method of origin, only several theories and hypothesis that fit the evidence we do have, and some that do not. Guess we'll have to wait for time travel to find out for sure...

 

I never said anything about method of origin.

 

You do know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, right?

[Jusmar]

I am really fighting the urge scream but I guess my post did not stick. It all boils down to no creationism in schools because that is an objective view on reality and that evolution is the best theory that we currently have rather than several books written by the obviously "bias", your words not mine op, humans. How can we know if the hundreds of holy books and religions are correct. Each one seems to have a different take on reality. Where was the Christian God when Buddha or Hindi was around? Seems like 500 years is quite a while to get someone to write down what happened. How could creationism be taught in schools? Each religion has a different way of looking at genesis and the dawn of man.

Creationism is a personal belief and evolution is a current scientific theory based on the best facts we have not a book of religion.

[Geneaux486]

Evolution is the most logical conclusion we can draw based on the evidence that we can observe. Indeed, evolution in various stages is still observable even today. Even if it isn't 100% proven, the methods in which it was concieved and studied are still relevant to science classes. Faith requires a belief in something that cannot directly be observed, otherwise it would not be faith. Jesus himself said something along those lines. I believe in God, which evolution does not conflict with at the most basic levels. Basically my stance is, teach the science in the science class. Matters of faith need to be taught and explained in a completely different way. That's my opinion at least.