Where did I say that students must 'embrace evolution'? In fact I said straight out that science classes (which is where evolution belongs, because it's science) -- i'll quote it for you even.


Why is Creationism required to stimulate thought and ideas?


Evolution is taught in a science class. (Namely, Biology and Integrated Science)

If Creationism as you argue should be taught along side evolution

You are saying Creationism should be taught in science classes.

Evolution was also taught in my world history class we had an entire chapter on the Neanderthals and their period of evolution.


Here's a shocker I believe in evolution just not how it's taught in schools with origins being some big Cosmo explosion, or that we all started out as single celled organisms. These are taught as facts not theory's in school.

---

Creationism doesn't ignore evolution it argues against man being monkey a million years ago, there is no evidence man was ever a monkey it's all theory's

 

Just to clear something up, evolution does not state that man was a monkey a million years ago.  It merely states that the evidence supports the fact that humans and ape's likely had a common ancestor millions of years ago.  I mean we are classified as Primates.

 

 

Evolution was also taught in my world history class we had an entire chapter on the Neanderthals and their period of evolution.

Yes, Neanderthals tend to be taught in History Classes.  That's part of world history.  Usually it's (in my experience) less about evolution and more about the historical context.  (Even Creationists tend to not argue against Neanderthals existing)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I would argue with this.

 

1.Theology - the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas, but can also mean the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary, or school of divinity.

 

Key points regarding that definition is the "rational study of concepts".  As well as "the nature of religious ideas".  It by no means points to any particular religion or deity.

 

2.  Nobody brought up religion, the question was about if parents should be allowed to choose where their children get educated.  It should be a simple yes/no question not a "yes but... or no but..." question.

 

3.  Not sure about your answer, but if a science class is discussing "the beginning of the world" should the idea or concept of creationism not be brought up?  After all, it's a theory much like the "big bang" theory.  The "big bang" theory is not proven, nor is the "creationism" theory.  Why should one be excluded from education and not the other?

 

 

No it's not. It's a religious tenet. A scientific theory is completely different they way you are using the word. 

 

You know who else has "theories" on the matter? Every single religion and mythology ever in the history of always. Ought they all be "taught" as alternative "theories" in science calls or perhaps just actual science should be taught?

---

Nothing like taking comments out of context.

 

How about quoting my whole comment and addressing that rather than picking a phrase to suit your agenda?  I've already expressed my reasoning for creationism being part of a curriculum in a high school education.  I stated my reasoning for that.

 

You seem to think that creationism shouldn't be a part of the curriculum because in your small mind "creationism = religion" of some sort.  To go further, I would suggest that your idea of religion is "religion = christian".

 

Get off of your personal beliefs and think about what children learn.  You want to "shield" them from learning about what creationism is and what it's about.  In other words, you want our public education system to be about the same thing that Steve Wozniak talked about in that video clip.  I call that indoctrination rather than learning.

Don't you always criticize other's for making personal attacks?

 

Creationism does equal religion. It was invented by religion and has been propped by religious beliefs with literally nothing else provided as "evidence"

 

I would say, in school,  children should be taught facts. Not beliefs. 

---

Don't you always criticize other's for making personal attacks?


Creationism does equal religion. It was invented by religion and has been propped by religious beliefs with literally nothing else provided as "evidence"


I would say, in school, children should be taught facts. Not beliefs.

I agree which is why the Big Bang, and single cell evolution shouldn't be taught either.

---

It'd be a problem for many.  I certainly don't want my kids exposed to creationism at school.  


And here's where the problem comes in:


School A doesn't teach creationism.

School B does.


School B produces more people who graduate despite being illiterate, while School A has a much better literacy rate.  School B gets more funding, while School A gets less.  Education is basically turned into a profit-based business where parents are customers.  They choose based on a variety of factors, and the better schools fail to get funding, and go out of business despite being, objectively better schools.  Schools would  have to appeal to the parents, rather than focus on educating the students.  Educating students should be the primary goal of a school.  Not profit.  Because it's easy to attract parents.  It's hard to actually educate students.  And the bottom line would be all that matters in the end.


I mean if Creationism was actually a science, then I'd say "Yeah, they should teach it."  But it's not a science. Religious values should be imposed by parents, and (if the parents so choose) their church, not schools. 

 

The basic problem with you analogy is pretty simple, you inherently truncate the amount of choices possible when the whole idea of school choice is to increase the options available to each parent when making the decision on where best to educate their children.  If the crux of your argument is that the population at large, the vast majority of which were educated in public schools, are too stupid to make decisions for their own children then that puts a pretty big dent in the argument for continuing the state run monopoly.  

 

I'm not against stimulating thought.  But Creationism is a religious concept, not a scientific one.  Teachers may (and should) provide scientific critiques of evolution.  But they should not teach creationism.  An Intelligent Designer can neither be proven nor disproven by science.  


Creationism could be talked about maybe in a class like Comparative Religion.  But it has no place in a science class.  And most people don't take Comparative Religion.  

 

Just as an aside, the opposite of Creationism is not evolution, its abiogenesis.  It always makes me chuckle a little when those who croon the most about scientific accuracy continue this popular mix up.  Its even funnier when most learn the difference between general evolutionary theory and the concept of abiogenesis that they are measures less hostile to people of faith.  

 

First off, contrary to your thinly veiled accusations people of faith can read.  I don't know why you saw the need to drag a conversation about school funding into a debate about religion or creationism, it seems more than a little alarmist and frankly insulting in the way you categorized people that disagree with you and if no one else points it out then i will, that's pretty unacceptable.  

 

In part you're right.  It would be incumbent on parents to make good decisions about where to send your kids.  Also, there would undoubtedly be a myriad of institutions that wanted to cater to a niche of one ideological or spiritual leaning or another, and that's a good thing.  If you want your kids educated in a more or completely secular environment then that's your personal choice, i am not going to use the force of the state to force them to go to seminary any more than i would want you to compel my kids to have to go to an institution that demeans my beliefs as you have above.  

 

The idea that glitz and glamour alone would attract parents to schools that don't teach is just plain not credible. 

 

1.) you have a system now in which teachers know that no matter what students and their paychecks are going to show up next year.  That offers ZERO incentive to innovate!  the tenure and public sector union system is so bad in some places that in New York City you literally have teachers getting paid to go to a room and make paper planes because their sex offenders who can't be around kids but they can't get fired!  Does that make any sense?

 

2.) No matter how glitzy a schools PR people may be at some point the parent is going to interact with the student.  If the student isn't performing and growing academically then the responsible parent isn't going to put up with it and a motivated student will make sure to bring it to their parents attention.  And if your dealing with an irresponsible parent and an unmotivated child there's nothing that the current system can do to save that child either.  

 

3.) It amazes me that after everything that the 20th century taught us that we still have to argue so hard for the freedom of choice and have to continually demonstrate the inherent and systemic inefficiencies of government monopolies.  

 

4.) Heaven forbid that at some point in a free system that some educators might figure out that it doesn't make sense to waste as much time as we do with electives when kids will find creative enrichment on their own anyway and actually offer a more streamline focused academic curriculum that wouldn't need a full four years of college after 13 years of being in the school system to produce a bachelors level student.  Just sayin'!

---

You completely missed my point.  


First off, I did not insinuate people of faith cannot read.  That wasn't my point, and I'm not sure why you decided to take it that way.  My insinuation was that quality of a school isn't the only factor people would use when making a decision on where to send their kids.  Values is just one reason.  Cost is another.  Maybe School B is cheaper, and draws in more students because parents would rather spend their money on other things.  But that means School A has to raise their prices to afford better teachers because they have fewer students.  Or maybe School B just has a better marketing program.  Much like your For-Profit colleges today, you'd see the rise of For-Profit schools.  Why do you think universities such as University of Phoenix are able to succeed?  Those schools churn out bad degrees that are worthless when it comes to getting a job.  


Yes, there are incentives to innovate.  Monetary incentives are not the only incentives.  Teaching is an incredibly difficult profession, one that does not attract everyone.  Teachers are always innovating.  Not everything works on Free Market logic.  Education is one of those things.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

hogwash.  above you just described the concept of supply and demand.  It's not perfect, but last i checked its helped our country achieve the great economic miracle of our time.  conversely, when you look at government and bureaucratic monopolies they have proven time and time again to be riddled with inefficiency.   

 

to blindly advocate the continuation of the status quo because you don't like the idea of people being able to control more of their own destiny is kind of shocking. 

---

I agree which is why the Big Bang, and single cell evolution shouldn't be taught either.

Those however have much scientific backing. Enough to be taught as possibles based on mathematics, experimentation and models.


Current understanding of physics and mathematics points to all matter in the universe accelerating away from a singular point. Quantum mechanics leads to an understanding of how, potentially a big band could occur.


Single cell Tumor cells have been observed evolving this is proof that single cell evolution occurs in nature.


No such evidence, outside of pure speculation and faith for creationism

---

This is the interesting point about the purely secular view of origin. 

 

1.) As I said before, the antithesis of creation is not evolution.  At not time does anyone assert that the concept of creation or intelligent design is predicated on allele frequencies or dominant traits within a population of organisms will remain static over time. The antithesis of creation would be abiogenesis, a non living organism coming from a non living organisms.  Incidentally, there is a scientific law of BIOGENESIS meaning that it is currently held that all living things originated from other living things.  No one talks about abiogenesis as the backbone of their view of origin because the absence of any proof in the history of the modern scientific record is kind of inconvenient for discussions like this.  I say modern because it wasn't that long ago that science believed that the rats spontaneously generated from the cheese in the corner. 

 

2.) I don't understand how advocates of big bang theory can be so closed minded to the possibility of a force greater than the known natural laws.  As a matter of fact its pretty contradictory.  When you espouse the idea that the universe has a beginning date, be it 14 thousand years or fourteen trillion years, it then begs the question how did it start and where did it come from.  The current understanding of physics and mathematics does not account for the spontaneous generation of matter.  Also, and just as importantly, you're talking about the mass of the entire universe occupying a single point in space and then springing forth, almost like some greater force just woke up one day and said let there be light. 

 

I have no problem with either evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory being taught in the classroom.  The problem is that the theories aren't taught in the classroom.  If you ask most people who advocate a purely secular view of the origin of the universe put down their smart phone and to tell you the difference between the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution they look at you with a blank stare.  If you then ask that person to give you five credible instances of speciation level changes observed in nature they start calling you a flat earther as they walk off. 

---

Those however have much scientific backing. Enough to be taught as possibles based on mathematics, experimentation and models.


Current understanding of physics and mathematics points to all matter in the universe accelerating away from a singular point. Quantum mechanics leads to an understanding of how, potentially a big band could occur.


Single cell Tumor cells have been observed evolving this is proof that single cell evolution occurs in nature.


No such evidence, outside of pure speculation and faith for creationism

A single cell tumor evolving isn't the same as a single cell organism developing organs. We have never observed or even remotely proven that kind of evolution. It's based on faith still which is why I say if your going to call creationism faith based science because it can't be proven you have to say the same thing about the way we teach evolution origins now.


As for the Big Bang again it's all a theory but it wasn't taught as theory not when I was in school. And if we're teaching theory not science who gets to decide which theory's are taught?

---

Great post eric.


True science is not adraid of the term "we dont know!"

---

This is the interesting point about the purely secular view of origin. 

 

1.) As I said before, the antithesis of creation is not evolution.  At not time does anyone assert that the concept of creation or intelligent design is predicated on allele frequencies or dominant traits within a population of organisms will remain static over time. The antithesis of creation would be abiogenesis, a non living organism coming from a non living organisms.  Incidentally, there is a scientific law of BIOGENESIS meaning that it is currently held that all living things originated from other living things.  No one talks about abiogenesis as the backbone of their view of origin because the absence of any proof in the history of the modern scientific record is kind of inconvenient for discussions like this.  I say modern because it wasn't that long ago that science believed that the rats spontaneously generated from the cheese in the corner. 

 

2.) I don't understand how advocates of big bang theory can be so closed minded to the possibility of a force greater than the known natural laws.  As a matter of fact its pretty contradictory.  When you espouse the idea that the universe has a beginning date, be it 14 thousand years or fourteen trillion years, it then begs the question how did it start and where did it come from.  The current understanding of physics and mathematics does not account for the spontaneous generation of matter.  Also, and just as importantly, you're talking about the mass of the entire universe occupying a single point in space and then springing forth, almost like some greater force just woke up one day and said let there be light. 

 

I have no problem with either evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory being taught in the classroom.  The problem is that the theories aren't taught in the classroom.  If you ask most people who advocate a purely secular view of the origin of the universe put down their smart phone and to tell you the difference between the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution they look at you with a blank stare.  If you then ask that person to give you five credible instances of speciation level changes observed in nature they start calling you a flat earther as they walk off. 

And if you ask anyone for a single shred of evidence for creationism they come up with absolutely nothing. Bring something real or something that can be based in theoretical physics/mathematics to the party and science will embrace and explore it.

---

A single cell tumor evolving isn't the same as a single cell organism developing organs. We have never observed or even remotely proven that kind of evolution. It's based on faith still which is why I say if your going to call creationism faith based science because it can't be proven you have to say the same thing about the way we teach evolution origins now.


As for the Big Bang again it's all a theory but it wasn't taught as theory not when I was in school. And if we're teaching theory not science who gets to decide which theory's are taught?

A scientific theory is different than the other "theory". 

 

From the OSU website:

"some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

 

Small scale, short term evolution has been seen and recorded multiple times. It's only hard to imagine it on a larger scale if you have a preconceived notion blocking that path.  

---

Great post eric.


True science is not adraid of the term "we dont know!"

Very true. They say we don't know about a lot of things. Dark matter, dark energy, black holes, a theory to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. 

 

Evolution is not one of those cases. 

---

Still missed it.

---

This is the interesting point about the purely secular view of origin.


1.) As I said before, the antithesis of creation is not evolution. At not time does anyone assert that the concept of creation or intelligent design is predicated on allele frequencies or dominant traits within a population of organisms will remain static over time. The antithesis of creation would be abiogenesis, a non living organism coming from a non living organisms. Incidentally, there is a scientific law of BIOGENESIS meaning that it is currently held that all living things originated from other living things. No one talks about abiogenesis as the backbone of their view of origin because the absence of any proof in the history of the modern scientific record is kind of inconvenient for discussions like this. I say modern because it wasn't that long ago that science believed that the rats spontaneously generated from the cheese in the corner.


2.) I don't understand how advocates of big bang theory can be so closed minded to the possibility of a force greater than the known natural laws. As a matter of fact its pretty contradictory. When you espouse the idea that the universe has a beginning date, be it 14 thousand years or fourteen trillion years, it then begs the question how did it start and where did it come from. The current understanding of physics and mathematics does not account for the spontaneous generation of matter. Also, and just as importantly, you're talking about the mass of the entire universe occupying a single point in space and then springing forth, almost like some greater force just woke up one day and said let there be light.


I have no problem with either evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory being taught in the classroom. The problem is that the theories aren't taught in the classroom. If you ask most people who advocate a purely secular view of the origin of the universe put down their smart phone and to tell you the difference between the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution they look at you with a blank stare. If you then ask that person to give you five credible instances of speciation level changes observed in nature they start calling you a flat earther as they walk off.

What are you even goin on about?

---

A scientific theory is different than the other "theory".


From the OSU website:
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);">"some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a </span>comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);"> Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".</span>


Small scale, short term evolution has been seen and recorded multiple times. It's only hard to imagine it on a larger scale if you have a preconceived notion blocking that path.

Excellent point.

In college I read of a study done on fruit flies. The study showed that one cohort of flies evolved into 2 distinct subsets over a very short period of time. I'm at work, but I think one can actually Google the study...

---

Excellent point.

In college I read of a study done on fruit flies. The study showed that one cohort of flies evolved into 2 distinct subsets over a very short period of time. I'm at work, but I think one can actually Google the study...

Sure but they didn't evolve from a fly to a roach. That's what creationism argues against and there is no scientific observation or evidence that species evolve on a progressive line. These are all assumptions made about the unknown, if we're only going to teach science I'm good with that but don't tell me one theory is ok to teach and the other is not.

---

A scientific theory is different than the other "theory".


From the OSU website:
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);">"some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a </span>comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);"> Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".</span>


Small scale, short term evolution has been seen and recorded multiple times. It's only hard to imagine it on a larger scale if you have a preconceived notion blocking that path.

I understand it's a theory based on evidence but the interpretation of that evidence is coming from an ideology of no creator(s). Creationism only interprets the same evidence with the assumption everything comes from something. There is no way to prove either right or wrong, that's my point.

---