Creation/Evolution.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I was having a discussion with a friend this afternoon and we talked a little about the teaching of creationism in schools. Earlier this year there were several news stories about school in the UK which taught creationism as opposed to evolution and I know that there are some states in the US which state the evolution can only be taught as *theory* and not as fact.

So I wondered what my fellow FYMers think about this?

Firstly - do you believe in creationism or evolution? If you could explain why you believe what you do or maybe link to a website that explains further, that would be great.

Secondly - do you think schools should be permitted to teach creationism rather than evolution? Should schools teach evolution as just one possible theory or should they teach evolution as scientific fact?

 

[speedracer]

I was having a discussion with a friend this afternoon and we talked a little about the teaching of creationism in schools. Earlier this year there were several news stories about school in the UK which taught creationism as opposed to evolution and I know that there are some states in the US which state the evolution can only be taught as *theory* and not as fact.

So I wondered what my fellow FYMers think about this?

Firstly - do you believe in creationism or evolution? If you could explain why you believe what you do or maybe link to a website that explains further, that would be great.

Secondly - do you think schools should be permitted to teach creationism rather than evolution? Should schools teach evolution as just one possible theory or should they teach evolution as scientific fact?

I'm not sure how mankind was created; neither one would surprise me.

Creationism absolutely should be taught in schools--in literature/philosophy/religion classes, not science classes. Creationism is pretty much scientifically untestable and so shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Evolution absolutely should be taught in science classes, but it is fair to point out the holes (they do exist) in an evolutionary account of the origins of all species. (Did you know that Francis Crick, convinced that cellular life could not have formed spontaneously on earth, published a theory hypothesizing that Earth was colonized by primitive life forms native to some other planet where the climate was conducive to prebiological evolution? See Crick, Life Itself.)

 

[anitram]

1. I believe in evolution, and am very interested in the RNA World theory. You can look this up, it's a pretty hot thing right now.

2. I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools because even if the three Western traditions of Islam/Christianity/Judaism believe it, many millions (billions) of people around the world do not. A school is not an exclusive religious institution; if a parent wants their kid to learn about creationism, they can teach them about it at home or send them to sunday school. There should be no room for it in the classroom where people of different faiths and belief systems converge. If we teach creationism, why don't we teach about the Hindu beliefs of world creation/destruction cycles?

ETA: I was referring to teaching it as scientific theory. As speedracer said, within the context of a religion/philosophy class, it's fine.

 

[Klaus]

I never thought too much about the creaton of the universe, from my feelings it's a combo of both things, created universe which was changed by evolution but that's just a feeling, i wouldn't defend this one.

Imho no matter if you believe in the Biblical story or in the Science story, it's both impossible to proof, we can't study 5-10 creations of universes and learn how universes tend to start existing in general.

It's like you watch 2 seconds of a movie in the cinema somewhere in the middle, and from the 2 seconds you try to interpolate how the movie started... well we can do that for some hollywood movies, because they tend to be all the same ) but seriousely, i don't think that you can KNOW how it started, you can only believe..

Klaus

 

[speedracer]

If we teach creationism, why don't we teach about the Hindu beliefs of world creation/destruction cycles?

I'm not too familiar with Hindu beliefs, but it is scientifically plausible that the expansion of the universe could stop and that the collected matter of the universe could collapse under its own gravitational weight, leading to a big crunch and another big bang.

 

[Sherry Darling]

As a teacher I can tell you that problem and questions make awesome curriculum. I think they all should be brought up; then have the kids reseach it and explore for themselves. This'd make a great English/math/history/science project. Course, it might lead to them thinking and questioning for themselves, so I doubt it will happen.

To answer your question, I have no clue. I believe God did whatever has taken place, but we constantly seem to be learningn so much more that I don't know how any of it can rightly be called more than theory.



sd

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Creation/Evolution.

I'm not sure how mankind was created; neither one would surprise me.

Creationism absolutely should be taught in schools--in literature/philosophy/religion classes, not science classes. Creationism is pretty much scientifically untestable and so shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Evolution absolutely should be taught in science classes, but it is fair to point out the holes (they do exist) in an evolutionary account of the origins of all species. (Did you know that Francis Crick, convinced that cellular life could not have formed spontaneously on earth, published a theory hypothesizing that Earth was colonized by primitive life forms native to some other planet where the climate was conducive to prebiological evolution? See Crick, Life Itself.)

I actually agree with you. Religion has no place in schools as a "religion" class, but, rather, I think that philosophy has its place in schools, which is painfully omitted these days. Teaching how religion has influenced philosophy--just as modernism and postmodernism has--would certainly shed some light as to why our culture is the way it is today.

However, I also think that people are flat out too lazy to teach stuff this way. Education is still too humanist at its core (yet another reason as to why we need to teach philosophy), and it still demands definitive "answers" / "Truth." On the contrary, as much as we "know" today, the less we actually have answers for; just theories that may or may not be disproved down the road.

BTW, I believe in a form of evolution, not necessarily strict Darwinism. I believe that creationism is a load of bullshit, but that God still had His hand in creation--through creating the process of evolution.

Melon

Melon

 

[verte76]

I believe in evolution. However, I also believe that God was involved, somehow, in the development of human beings and other living beings. It's so amazing that only God could have done it.

 

[Klaus]

Klaus:

i forgot the school statement: so seems like we can't teach "the truth" becasue we don't know it.
So why not teaching all theories and comparing them to each other?

Klaus

 

[melon]

So why not teaching all theories and comparing them to each other?

Because creationism is not a scientific theory. It would be like teaching people that the world was created by little green men whose flatulence particles formed the world. You certainly can't prove that's wrong, now can you?

Like it or not, evolution is the theory that has the science behind it. It's not perfect, but it's what the evidence points to currently. Creationism? It wouldn't even be in our public consciousness, if it weren't in the Bible. Since creationism takes a whole five minutes to teach, let parents who believe it teach their children at home. It has no place in schools.

Melon

 

[Klaus]

Well if the theory is consistent in itself and there are enough folowers - why not?

Science is far from absolute truth, i see that every day, most of the time we're talking about thereories, "mights" and "coulds" but in the pressmap later they are presented as facts

If you try to evaluate things that hapened several million years before you it's most of the time also just a "mind game" like the green men whos ... particles.. .

There are exelent therories for evolution floating around, interesting is that the verry famous researches refuse that other scientists take their bones to the lab for a 2nd resarch for a verification/falsification. So.. excelent theories but from a scientific approach: i would look ouf for a new job if my bos would do "science" in such a way.

Klaus

 

[ouizy]

1. I believe in evolution, and am very interested in the RNA World theory. You can look this up, it's a pretty hot thing right now.

2. I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools because even if the three Western traditions of Islam/Christianity/Judaism believe it, many millions (billions) of people around the world do not. A school is not an exclusive religious institution; if a parent wants their kid to learn about creationism, they can teach them about it at home or send them to sunday school. There should be no room for it in the classroom where people of different faiths and belief systems converge. If we teach creationism, why don't we teach about the Hindu beliefs of world creation/destruction cycles?

ETA: I was referring to teaching it as scientific theory. As speedracer said, within the context of a religion/philosophy class, it's fine.

I fully agree with this post.

I will say, however, that the religion/philosophy classes may only happen at the college level, unless at private religious high schools and below, not at public ones.

As a teacher I can tell you that problem and questions make awesome curriculum. I think they all should be brought up;

This concerns me a little because you have to keep church and state seperated at all costs. When you don't, parents come in demanding creationism be taught and that is outright wrong...

 

[bayernfc]

I just see no reason why creationism and evolution can't go hand in hand (well if you don't take creationsm literally word by word.... it actually goes very well with Evolution)

 

[ouizy]

I just see no reason why creationism and evolution can't go hand in hand (well if you don't take creationsm literally word by word.... it actually goes very well with Evolution)

how?


one deals with the idea that a God of some kind created humans, and one says that we evolved from animals.

how can these go hand in hand?

 

[bayernfc]

It does say God of some kind created humans ..... but does it say how? He could have created us in millions of years through evolution from animals which still doesn't rule out the creationist theory of Humans coming from the earth...... Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[nbcrusader]

one deals with the idea that a God of some kind created humans, and one says that we evolved from animals.

The unfortunate part of the theory of evolution is that is cannot explain a beginning point. The mathematical odds make it as much a matter of faith as creationism.

 

[ouizy]

I understand both of you - the problem now is the use of any kind of God in creationism and none or possibly one in evolutionism, he just does not factor into the occasion...

 

[najeena]

I think that the fact that a man as powerful as Bush doesn't see evolution as a viable explanation for our existence is frightening. The separation of Church and State is being blurred, and many of the freedoms we have taken for granted are now at risk.

 

[BVS]

I believe in Crevolution.

 

[speedracer]

So I wondered what my fellow FYMers think about this?

FizzingWhizzbees,

What do you think?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think that the fact that a man as powerful as Bush doesn't see evolution as a viable explanation for our existence is frightening.

You do realize that this statement reeks of eletist intelluctual snobbery, don't you?

 

[brettig]

I think the theories of creation and evolution can co-exist quite easily. The mathematical odds for evolution being an entirely random process don't even bear thinking about, so that's where creation comes into it. Sure, we evolved, but it was through divine design, not luck. That is unless you think the world was created in seven 24 hour days...

 

[melon]

The unfortunate part of the theory of evolution is that is cannot explain a beginning point. The mathematical odds make it as much a matter of faith as creationism.

Except that creationism blows a hole through its arguments in constructing fantastical claims about the world being only 10,000 years old and co-existing with dinosaurs. The difference between evolution and creationism is that the former is molded on theory and evidence, while the latter molds its "theory" around its pre-existing belief system. In other words, there is room for change within evolution, while creationists leave no possibility for them being wrong. That's not science; that's religion.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: Re: Re: Creation/Evolution.

Exactly ^^^^.

I actually agree with you. Religion has no place in schools as a "religion" class, but, rather, I think that philosophy has its place in schools, which is painfully omitted these days. Teaching how religion has influenced philosophy--just as modernism and postmodernism has--would certainly shed some light as to why our culture is the way it is today.

.

As for me, I do believe in evolution-the idea that apes and humans share a common ancestor just makes more sense to me.

I don't really know if I believe God played a part in making the universe.

Angela

 

[80sU2isBest]

I believe in creation. I once left open teh possibility that evolution of man and creation could go hand-in-hand, but now I don't think they are compatible at all? The reason? The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth, in His own image. The Bible also later says that Christ is the image of the living God.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I believe in creation. I once left open teh possibility that evolution of man and creation could go hand-in-hand, but now I don't think they are compatible at all? The reason? The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the earth, in His own image. The Bible also later says that Christ is the image of the living God.

yeah, but the Bible also says a lot of other things that are metaphorical. So I would think that it would be read as inspired literature rather than a scientific textbook. Treating it as the latter actually reads back 21st century expectations into something that was not intended to support that level of detail.

 

[nbcrusader]

Except that creationism blows a hole through its arguments in constructing fantastical claims about the world being only 10,000 years old and co-existing with dinosaurs.

I will agree that there is a minority of hyper-literal creationists who see the genealogies as strict generation to generation, ignoring the Hebrew terms used can skip many generations in a family line.

 

[80sU2isBest]

yeah, but the Bible also says a lot of other things that are metaphorical. So I would think that it would be read as inspired literature rather than a scientific textbook. Treating it as the latter actually reads back 21st century expectations into something that was not intended to support that level of detail.

So, are you telling me that:

1)God didn't create man in His own image, as the Bible says?

or

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

 

[BVS]

So, are you telling me that:

1)God didn't create man in His own image, as the Bible says?

or

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

1. God created man in God's image. But who's to say what the process was? A sculptor starts off with a mound of clay.

2. I think people seem to take this "image" thing way too literal. I don't believe God to have have two legs, two arms, two eyes just like a human. God took human form, but even then was born out of a human womb.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

So, are you telling me that:

1)God didn't create man in His own image, as the Bible says?

or

2)God did create man in His own image, but that God the Father's (and Jesus') image is that of an amoeba or whatever it is that supposedly is the very first stage of the very first man?

Given the two options you have listed (which I think are completely a false either/or) I would ask you...are we in the image of God when we are a single cell egg? A fetus?

What I am saying is that it has been a question throughout the ages of Christian theology as to what exactly the "imago dei" means. You should know that as well as I. If you would like to argue that "image" is merely a physical representation, then I would be curious to know how gender would figure into that. Personally, I believe that being created in the image of God is a cornerstone of my faith, but I think it has more to do with all that encompasses being human, including the "soul".