Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Blue]

Well since we don't know what being a well and true omnipotent God is like, we couldn't really conject. Unless your definition of God is different than the definition of omnipotent, or is entirely describable in some way using modern definitions of science.

To that end, the God I know and to the extent I understand, does not need to move at 88mph in order to comprehend the universe he made.

[Kyon]

How about we teach neither or tell either idea depending on their faith

[Michael Archer]

zakalak, you mean like agnosticism?

 

In truth, I respect the creationists more than the agnostics; agnosticism is the most cowardly position one can take. The agnostic equates knowledge with arbitrary claims; he thinks that arbitrary claims have equal epistemological value to empirical evidence. Also, the agnostic puts the burden of proof on the negative i.e. he says "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so I guess we'll never know."

 

Evolution is not opposed by any theory and there has been no empirical and objective piece of evidence to the contrary i.e. the evidence for evolution is conclusive. Therefore, evolution is valid and is knowledge: contextually. By context, I mean it supports all other knowledge without contradiction, in application and in the valid empirical method the evidence was obtained.

[ProHypster]

I have a new theory.

 

There is no logical explanation of the point of this universe and how it was created.

[Michael Archer]

Your point?

[ProHypster]

Wrong Thread ....

 

But, in other terms, if my theory is true, this makes it much, much harder to find out how our universe was created and gives us infinity possibilities, maybe we won't even have time to find out.

[Eedo Baba]

How about we teach neither or tell either idea depending on their faith

 

Children don't have faiths. Their parents do.

[Kyon]

zakalak, you mean like agnosticism?

 

In truth, I respect the creationists more than the agnostics; agnosticism is the most cowardly position one can take. The agnostic equates knowledge with arbitrary claims; he thinks that arbitrary claims have equal epistemological value to empirical evidence. Also, the agnostic puts the burden of proof on the negative i.e. he says "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so I guess we'll never know."

 

Evolution is not opposed by any theory and there has been no empirical and objective piece of evidence to the contrary i.e. the evidence for evolution is conclusive. Therefore, evolution is valid and is knowledge: contextually. By context, I mean it supports all other knowledge without contradiction, in application and in the valid empirical method the evidence was obtained.

 

I'm saying, teach them whatever the fuck they'd rather learn. Sorry for the language there but you missed my point. This is the best way to avoid confrontation like this, and no, Everything does not have to be a fight, debate, or whatever. Cater to the people.

[Axeldeath]

Teach them whatever they want to learn? The sheer amount of teachers required for that is ridiculous, also why would you let children decide what to learn?

[Kyon]

The sheer amount of teachers required for that is ridiculous,

 

Two teachers to be precise, one to teach evolution and one to teach creationism. It is typically taught in Grade and Middle school so it wouldn't be too hard.

 

also why would you let children decide what to learn?

 

We do it already with electives and it isn't like they can choose neither. You act like kids are complete idiots. By that time they have already probably made decisions about religion and whatnot so it isn't like they can't do it.

[Axeldeath]

and one to teach creationism

 

How do you teach creationism? Is there anything beyond some deity made the universe if you aren't going to teach specific religions?

Children are forced to do Maths and English the entire time they are at school for a reason, most children will just decide to pick the easiest route to take or their parents will make the choice for them.

[Pinkie Pie]

Why do schools need to teach this stuff anyway? Shouldn't that be the parent's job? (Legal guardian or otherwise)

[Michael Archer]

The sheer amount of teachers required for that is ridiculous,

 

Two teachers to be precise, one to teach evolution and one to teach creationism.

 

I think Axeldeath meant that the amount of teachers needed to teach all arbitrary theories would be ridiculous.

 

Evolution is only opposed by creation which is an arbitrary theory; it's equally as arbitrary as if I were to say, "our lives are predestined at birth and the planets have mystical powers that decide our fate." The only reason that people consider it is that it's the most popular arbitrary theory.

 

The only reason that people don't consider teaching alchemy along with chemistry or phrenology along with neurology is that phrenology and alchemy are only believed by a very small number of people.

 

Even the smartest people are susceptible to Argumentum ad Populum. (Damn I shouldn't of said that; some creationist will now take that assertion out of context and accuse me of using the same fallacy)

[danielsangeo]

The sheer amount of teachers required for that is ridiculous,

 

Two teachers to be precise, one to teach evolution and one to teach creationism. It is typically taught in Grade and Middle school so it wouldn't be too hard.

 

Actually, there are so many flavors of creationism, it'd be a full time job for years to teach children them all. You have the Christian creation story, you have the Hindu creation story, you have the Zoroastrian creation story, you have the Roman creation story.......And why stop there? Let's go with the "Tripping the Rift" creation story, or the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" creation story...and so on. They all are equally valid if you want to put creationism as a science: Not valid science at all.

 

"Creationism" isn't some singular thing you can teach a child.

 

also why would you let children decide what to learn?

 

We do it already with electives and it isn't like they can choose neither. You act like kids are complete idiots. By that time they have already probably made decisions about religion and whatnot so it isn't like they can't do it.

 

Yes, but there's only one correct answer a lot of times. We don't let children decide on what the answer should be. The only scientific theory, that is backed up by the testable evidence, is the Big Bang, currently. If you have any other evidence, then you can put it forth. Until that time, however, it remains....well, conjecture.

[Srake]

"Adam and Eve, you have failed me. I give you paradise and immortality and the only thing you cannot do is eat from the Tree of Knowledge. For failing me I condemn you to a fate worse than death. EVOLUTION!"

"NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

 

That's how it happened. Deal with it.

[Pinkie Pie]

...Huh.

[Flyingamerboy]

maybe god created the big bang?

[Dr. Derpy Hooves Ph.D]

maybe god created the big bang?

I can't even tell you how hard I LOL'd at that.

[Flyingamerboy]

?????

[alphabetagamma]

maybe god created the big bang?

I can't even tell you how hard I LOL'd at that.

I'm not sure why you think that's impossible. The universe creating itself from nothing seems about as likely as god doing the same then creating our universe. I'm always disappointed at the superiority religious and non-religious people feel over each other, as if they've somehow already proved or disproved the existence of god and billions of other people are just ignorant.