Creationism in Public Schools

[United Muscovite Nations]

The always-popular response of someone who has no idea of what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.”

Did you go back in the Telephone Booth 75 millions years to the past and confirmed it?

We can see evolution in our own time.

[Korhal IVV]

It may be taught... as a theory. It is far too often that the atheist treats evolution like some kind of Gospel message that is the absolute truth.

My biology teacher was Catholic, and she taught it, but only as a theory. It is not an absolutely established super fact, it is just more well supported.

I suppose we should also teach atomic theory as a theory. And encourage kids to consider the possibility that Hiroshima just blew up coincidentally.

[Ecradia]

No, evolution should be the only thing taught in school, creationism has absolutely no place in public education. If people want their kids to be taught creationism then they can send them to their local church or religious school to learn it. Creationism also doesn’t pass the lemon test so there’s no constitutional basis for it to be allowed to be taught in public schools.

And yet it is taught as if is thr absolute truth when it is just a theory.

A theory which has been proven and observed by science. See, "theory" in the scientific sense is just about the exact opposite of "theory" in the colloquial sense. In the colloquial sense, "theory" means "hypothesis." In science, a theory is something which is scientifically plausible and generally can be proven, such as the theory of relativity, where we can prove that the faster something goes in space, the slower it experiences time. In the case of evolution, we can look at, for example, the finches of the Galapagos Islands and see how their beaks change over generational time in response to environmental changes and extrapolate this, or observe how a colony of E.Coli bacteria gains the ability to break down citrus enzymes and compounds over time, or how diseases become resistant to penicillin if exposed to it repeatedly, and then we can extrapolate these findings, these minor changes, across millions of years.

Moreover, it should be noted that creationism, especially of the young-earth variety does not even fit the definition for a hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory, as it cannot be tested.

[Korhal IVV]

“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.”

Did you go back in the Telephone Booth 75 millions years to the past and confirmed it?

We can see evolution in our own time.

Adaptation in response to climate change and whatever else, yes. Species transitioning to another species, not really.

[United Muscovite Nations]

We can see evolution in our own time.

Adaptation in response to climate change and whatever else, yes. Species transitioning to another species, not really.

Species is a very silly concept when you actually get around to looking at evolutionary biology, as the transition is incredibly slow, but we do know that eventually enough changes will build up that reproduction is no longer possible. But species is a poor concept because there are many species that can reproduce with one-another and produce fertile offspring.

Also, with many living organisms, we can just look at genetic makeup and see that we must have shared a common ancestor.

[Neanderthaland]

I suppose we should also teach atomic theory as a theory. And encourage kids to consider the possibility that Hiroshima just blew up coincidentally.

What? They're both theories. It's not like either of them have graduated from being theories. Theory is the highest level of confidence science can achieve. Gravity is a theory. Music is a theory.

Just once I would like a creationist to walk into band class and say "you shouldn't teach Music Theory, it's never been proven!"

[The Alma Mater]

Just to verify:

WHn you say creationism do you mean:

A. The creation stories of several religions, including the ones on how humanity came to be
B. The construct where some christians made up observations and research and carefully tossed away anything that contradicted their beliefs to pretend the Biblical account of creation fits observable fact
C. Creationism 2.0; aka "Intelligent design" -where the concepts of design inference and irreducible complexity were added ?

I am strongly in favour of teaching all 3 - but properly.

With A that means making a selection of several creation stories so that kids learn they widely differ; and need to find some way to determine the value of each. Or to accept we are the result of a deity giving himself a blowjob, that we crawled out of the armpit hairs of a giant that was encased in ice until a celestial goat licked him free, that we were created by a deity everyone promptly forgot etc.

With B an C it would mean teaching the concepts, but NOT leaving out the criticism, logical errors, deceptions and deliberate omissions. It would help show the value of the scientific method ("try to prove your idea is WRONG") over that used by the creationists ("only look at what supports your narrative") as well as make kids think on why christians need so much lies to sell their faith.

If you desire B or C to be taught the way the writers intended.. then no. Not until creationists have shown their work has any practical use.

[Ecradia]

We can see evolution in our own time.

Adaptation in response to climate change and whatever else, yes. Species transitioning to another species, not really.

That's exactly what evolution is. Adaptations piling up over hundreds, thousands or millions of generations until you eventually have something that isn't really what you started with.

[Neanderthaland]

We can see evolution in our own time.

Adaptation in response to climate change and whatever else, yes. Species transitioning to another species, not really.

We've observed speciation in:
The Hawthorn fly
Three-spined sticklebacks
Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
Tennessee cave salamanders
Greenish Warbler
Ensatina salamanders
Larus gulls
Petroica multicolor
Drosophila
Mayr bird fauna
Finches
Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
Apple maggot
Faeroe Island house mouse
Primula kewensis
Croatian lizards

[Giovenith]

Four words: Hell The Fuck No.

The end.

[Bombadil]

Adaptation in response to climate change and whatever else, yes. Species transitioning to another species, not really.

That's exactly what evolution is. Adaptations piling up over thousands or millions of years until you eventually have something that isn't really what you started with.

It's like believing you can build a drive to the road but not a highway to Chicago.

[Heloin]

What? They're both theories. It's not like either of them have graduated from being theories. Theory is the highest level of confidence science can achieve. Gravity is a theory. Music is a theory.

Just once I would like a creationist to walk into band class and say "you shouldn't teach Music Theory, it's never been proven!"

Newton screwed us all over by calling his stuff laws.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Creationism should be taught in the same light as pro-diseasers (anti-vax), homeopathy, astrology, and flat earth: pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can't be tested scientifically, or lack evidence to support them.

Teaching the scientific method and how to spot pseudoscience is beneficial for many reason: prevent disease, increase public support to fight climate change, increase interest in space exploration....

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Exactly. It’s not sensible. Evolution has gathered more proof than Creationism ever did. Shouldn’t the more widely accepted and scientifically approved theory/fact be taught?

It may be taught... as a theory. It is far too often that the atheist treats evolution like some kind of Gospel message that is the absolute truth.

My biology teacher was Catholic, and she taught it, but only as a theory. It is not an absolutely established super fact, it is just more well supported.

The difference is that the theory of evolution is:
A. Supported by ALL evidence that have been ever found
B. There has been NO findings contradicting evolution
C. Explains ALL findings in relevant fields
D. Is the SIMPLEST explanation in accordance with Occam's Razor principle
E. Is assembled through the scientific method

While the hypothesis creationism is:
A. Supported by VERY LITTLE evidence that have been ever found
B. There has been PLENTY findings contradicting creationism
C. Practically USELESS as an explanation, as it cannot create new hypothesis or prediction
D. Requires various fallacies, Goddidit, complex manuevers and constant revisions,
E. Which nothing like the scientific method as it sought to make all evidence support the dogma. If a stronger theory than evolution are to be proven, science will immediately follow. Not creationism—they will be stuck on the same hypothesis.

'Evolution is more supported', more like comparing Solomon's palace to the ugly hut on the slums near my Grandma's house.

[Hammer Britannia]

Adaptation in response to climate change and whatever else, yes. Species transitioning to another species, not really.

We've observed speciation in:
The Hawthorn fly
Three-spined sticklebacks
Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
Tennessee cave salamanders
Greenish Warbler
Ensatina salamanders
Larus gulls
Petroica multicolor
Drosophila
Mayr bird fauna
Finches
Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
Apple maggot
Faeroe Island house mouse
Primula kewensis
Croatian lizards

Also, man itself

IIRC, up until a couple of hundred years ago most of our species was lactose intolerant. It wasn't until very recently (In terms of species) that we could start drinking milk.

Is that species changing? Not really. But small changes, like the one suggested, could pile up over millions of years to create an entirely new species.

(Not a biologist tho, so please no bully)

[The Black Forrest]

Creationism should be taught in the same light as pro-diseasers (anti-vax), homeopathy, astrology, and flat earth: pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can't be tested scientifically, or lack evidence to support them.

Teaching the scientific method and how to spot pseudoscience is beneficial for many reason: prevent disease, increase public support to fight climate change, increase interest in space exploration....

The only problem with this will be the cries of religious oppression and the need for religious freedom in the classroom would quickly follow.

[Giovenith]

Exactly. It’s not sensible. Evolution has gathered more proof than Creationism ever did. Shouldn’t the more widely accepted and scientifically approved theory/fact be taught?

It may be taught... as a theory. It is far too often that the atheist treats evolution like some kind of Gospel message that is the absolute truth.

My biology teacher was Catholic, and she taught it, but only as a theory. It is not an absolutely established super fact, it is just more well supported.

You don't know what you're talking about, and neither did your teacher.

A "theory" in science does not mean the same thing as a theory in colloquial language. What you're thinking of is a hypothesis, not a theory. In science, a theory refers to an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. In short, it refers to the wider study of a certain phenomena — it does not mean that the phenomena in question is a guess or has questionable existence.

That's why we also have music theory, color theory, and the theory of gravity. The existence of music, color, and gravity is not up for any debate.

[Farnhamia]

We've observed speciation in:
The Hawthorn fly
Three-spined sticklebacks
Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
Tennessee cave salamanders
Greenish Warbler
Ensatina salamanders
Larus gulls
Petroica multicolor
Drosophila
Mayr bird fauna
Finches
Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
Apple maggot
Faeroe Island house mouse
Primula kewensis
Croatian lizards

Also, man itself

IIRC, up until a couple of hundred years ago most of our species was lactose intolerant. It wasn't until very recently (In terms of species) that we could start drinking milk.

Is that species changing? Not really. But small changes, like the one suggested, could pile up over millions of years to create an entirely new species.

(Not a biologist tho, so please no bully)

Lactose tolerance or persistence mutations started accumulating only in the last 10,000 years, not hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_p ... ry_history

[Northwest Slobovia]

Creationism should be taught in the same light as pro-diseasers (anti-vax), homeopathy, astrology, and flat earth: pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can't be tested scientifically, or lack evidence to support them.

Teaching the scientific method and how to spot pseudoscience is beneficial for many reason: prevent disease, increase public support to fight climate change, increase interest in space exploration....

The only problem with this will be the cries of religious oppression and the need for religious freedom in the classroom would quickly follow.

*shrugs* Let them sue. The courts will do nothing for them.

Some people will scream they're being oppressed for any silly reason. I'm not sure it's more common among the religious than not, but I think we hear of it more because some Christians are upset their beliefs have been knocked off the pedestal they were on back in the good old days. Y'know, when discrimination and injustice were the norm.

[Neutraligon]

It may be taught... as a theory. It is far too often that the atheist treats evolution like some kind of Gospel message that is the absolute truth.

My biology teacher was Catholic, and she taught it, but only as a theory. It is not an absolutely established super fact, it is just more well supported.

The difference is that the theory of evolution is:
A. Supported by ALL evidence that have been ever found
B. There has been NO findings contradicting evolution
C. Explains ALL findings in relevant fields
D. Is the SIMPLEST explanation in accordance with Occam's Razor principle
E. Is assembled through the scientific method

While the hypothesis creationism is:
A. Supported by VERY LITTLE evidence that have been ever found
B. There has been PLENTY findings contradicting creationism
C. Practically USELESS as an explanation, as it cannot create new hypothesis or prediction
D. Requires various fallacies, Goddidit, complex manuevers and constant revisions,
E. Which nothing like the scientific method as it sought to make all evidence support the dogma. If a stronger theory than evolution are to be proven, science will immediately follow. Not creationism—they will be stuck on the same hypothesis.

'Evolution is more supported', more like comparing Solomon's palace to the ugly hut on the slums near my Grandma's house.

Not sure you can call creationism an hypothesis considering it can't really be tested.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The difference is that the theory of evolution is:
A. Supported by ALL evidence that have been ever found
B. There has been NO findings contradicting evolution
C. Explains ALL findings in relevant fields
D. Is the SIMPLEST explanation in accordance with Occam's Razor principle
E. Is assembled through the scientific method

While the hypothesis creationism is:
A. Supported by VERY LITTLE evidence that have been ever found
B. There has been PLENTY findings contradicting creationism
C. Practically USELESS as an explanation, as it cannot create new hypothesis or prediction
D. Requires various fallacies, Goddidit, complex manuevers and constant revisions,
E. Which nothing like the scientific method as it sought to make all evidence support the dogma. If a stronger theory than evolution are to be proven, science will immediately follow. Not creationism—they will be stuck on the same hypothesis.

'Evolution is more supported', more like comparing Solomon's palace to the ugly hut on the slums near my Grandma's house.

Not sure you can call creationism an hypothesis considering it can't really be tested.

Literal intepretations, such as the making the creation of the earth younger than the oldest cities, have been repeatedly tested and found wanting.

Ironically, many of the early tests were conducted by clergy, trying to show that the earth had a beginning, as that was when the ideas of cyclic changes in landforms were being developed. (Volcanism raises mountains, erosion grinds them down.) Early interpretations of those implied an earth without beginning or end.

[Northwest Slobovia]

That's why we also have music theory, color theory, and the theory of gravity. The existence of music, color, and gravity is not up for any debate.

One of these things is not like the others...

[Europa Undivided]

The only problem with this will be the cries of religious oppression and the need for religious freedom in the classroom would quickly follow.

*shrugs* Let them sue. The courts will do nothing for them.

Some people will scream they're being oppressed for any silly reason. I'm not sure it's more common among the religious than not, but I think we hear of it more because some Christians are upset their beliefs have been knocked off the pedestal they were on back in the good old days. Y'know, when discrimination and injustice were the norm.

Or because we are being as labelled as stupid by everyone else, no?

Or that our preachers are arrested for preaching forgiveness in a Pride Parade despite saying nothing against them?

Or, all hell be damned, a preacher labelled as Islamophobic only because the preaching is public?

If that isn’t a tightening on religious freedkm then it doesn’t exit.

[Europa Undivided]

Not sure you can call creationism an hypothesis considering it can't really be tested.

Literal intepretations, such as the making the creation of the earth younger than the oldest cities, have been repeatedly tested and found wanting.

Ironically, many of the early tests were conducted by clergy, trying to show that the earth had a beginning, as that was when the ideas of cyclic changes in landforms were being developed. (Volcanism raises mountains, erosion grinds them down.) Early interpretations of those implied an earth without beginning or end.

Whoever told you that the Earth is 6000 years old based on the Bible hasn’t done his Bible study very well.

[New Legland]

The always-popular response of someone who has no idea of what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.”

Did you go back in the Telephone Booth 75 millions years to the past and confirmed it?

I could say the same about ancient and prehistory, but that would just be ridiculous, wouldn't it?