Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    However, no transitional fossils have ever been found.
    That is just absolute garbage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    No. Use something like Quakers or Rastafarianism for that.



    No. Use the theory of gravity or BBT to help understand what theory means.



    No. These same young people can eventually vote. It's in our best interest as a society to keep everybody well educated and to be able to think rationally. If you want to demonstrate that stupid people exist in society...then maybe..sure.
    So how often have you found yourself in a discussion about Quakers? On average I'm guessing less often than you've found yourself in a discussion about Creationism? So which topic would be more apt for young people to learn about?

    You miss the point. You've heard people comparing the theory of Creationism and the Theory of Evolution right? Perfect chance to discuss why the word 'theory' in each has entirely different connotations.

    Finally.. what? Are you saying you would prefer children to learn about vampires than real life things?

    I think I can see what you'd done here. You've read that I believe Creationism has a very specific place in curriculae and you've immediTely decided you know what my stance on Creationism is :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do apologise for taking a while to reply I made a post but the forum logged me out when I hit submit and I couldn't get it back (if you didn't know I'm new to this forum). I hope you are still up and haven't gone to bed

    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Not as a scientific theory they don't.
    There's an entire branch of creationism that is dedicated to proving it as a scientific theory - enter Creation Science or more correctly Naturalistic creationism.Creationism can be a scientific theory, because naturalistic creationism (in contrast with theistic creationism) is scientific if it were ever to be pursued by empirical method. I say this because there isn't anything within the idea of "creation" that precludes scientific investigation. The reason why theistic creationism is unscientific has to do with its being theistic, not with its appeal to the idea of creation. Psychology, for example, could study creativity within humans and other species. Thus, the idea of an "act of creation" is perfectly compatible with science.

    However, creationism is clearly compatible with a scientific approach to any topic. Creationism makes statements about real world events, places, and things. It is not concerned solely with subjective ideas or abstract concepts. There are established scientific facts that are consistent with creationism, and the way in which those facts relate to one another lends itself to a creationist interpretation. Just as other broad scientific ideas are used to lend coherence to a series of facts, so, too, does creationism.Coming back to the point of this thread, there are many other reasons why creationism is a rational and scientific approach to learning. Among these are the concepts of realistic probability, the flawed evidential support for macro-evolution, the evidence of experience, and so forth. There is no logical basis to accept naturalistic presuppositions outright and flatly reject creationist presuppositions. Firm belief in creation is no barrier to scientific discovery. Simply review the accomplishments of men like Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Pascal and Kelvin etc. . All were clear and comfortable creationists.

    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    This is absolutely, completely untrue. There's even a wikipedia article on this listing some of the key transitional fossils that have been uncovered. The fossil record is extremely patchy, sure, but to claim that there are no examples of transitional fossils is just a lie. And to go on to claim that the fossil record supports supernatural creation is even more absurd! A good scientific hypothesis has to (1) propose a mechanism and (2) make testable predictions that stand up to evidence. Creationism does neither of these. Natural selection does both.
    I have read that wiki page just now and even it admits that the evidence is relatively scarce (relative compared to fossils reflecting the state of equilibrium of a more stable species) and it begs the question why don’t we see more evidence of these transitional forms in the geological record? And why are there so many “gaps” between species, if all species are ultimately interconnected back to a single life form. This leads to my next point about transitional life forms are non-viable from a practical evolutionary stand point as environmental factors would spell disaster for these hybrid animals.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    So how often have you found yourself in a discussion about Quakers? On average I'm guessing less often than you've found yourself in a discussion about Creationism? So which topic would be more apt for young people to learn about?
    I have very intelligent family members that are young Earth creationists. I have discussed it a lot. I am sick to death of discussing it. It has no place for discussion. It needs to die. I haven't ever discussed the topic of Quakers, which is why I think it should be in schools.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    You miss the point. You've heard people comparing the theory of Creationism and the Theory of Evolution right? Perfect chance to discuss why the word 'theory' in each has entirely different connotations.
    Yes. It's just I don't want Creationism in any context to be discussed.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Finally.. what? Are you saying you would prefer children to learn about vampires than real life things?
    Yes. I read Dracula and Room 13 as part o English Lit. Students already learn about fantasy in school. Such as religion in general.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I think I can see what you'd done here. You've read that I believe Creationism has a very specific place in curriculae and you've immediTely decided you know what my stance on Creationism is :rolleyes:
    [/QUOTE] No? If I had to think about it, I would of thought you were against creationism?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    I have very intelligent family members that are young Earth creationists. I have discussed it a lot. I am sick to death of discussing it. It has no place for discussion. It needs to die. I haven't ever discussed the topic of Quakers, which is why I think it should be in schools.

    Yes. It's just I don't want Creationism in any context to be discussed.



    Yes. I read Dracula and Room 13 as part o English Lit. Students already learn about fantasy in school. Such as religion in general.

    No? If I had to think about it, I would of thought you were against creationism?[/QUOTE]

    I'm against creationism but for eduction. For me it's still a relevant issue that needs to be learnt about in a controlled environment so children are better informed. Hopefully one day it will be such an insignificant and rare belief that we can drop it from the curriculum, but it's not time yet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    it's in the curriculum?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Biologists overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution so this should be taught in biology. A lot of Christians support creationism so it should be taught in Religious Studies. Schools should also teach that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive as a lot of Christians (including me) believe that God may have used evolution as a method to create the world we live in.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    it's in the curriculum?
    It is part of the curriculum for most schools, in my experience.

    Crucially, though, most parts of the UK have banned schools from teaching it as scientifically valid, and it may only be taught in science as part of a broader discussion on scienfitic evidence and process, and in RE lessons.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think you have a different dictionary to most others; creationism is not as such covered under a 'plethora of knowledge' as peddling tripe to children...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As a viewpoint, sure they should teach/at least give them a basic idea of what creationism is. So they know each side of the argument is when it comes to origins.

    Any knowledge is good knowledge. Keeps you more open-minded if you know about an array of viewpoints. You can whap out banging quotes like "evolution is the idea some people have to explain life without god" - ken ham who is the living embodiment of cancer.

    P.s I briefly studied creatiomism as a response to evolution in school so i may be bias.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think how it should work is to start with creationism, and then have the teacher disprove it in front of the class, that way you could make students think more critically.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. no need, no rhyme, no reason to teach it whatsoever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    There's an entire branch of creationism that is dedicated to proving it as a scientific theory - enter Creation Science or more correctly Naturalistic creationism.Creationism can be a scientific theory, because naturalistic creationism (in contrast with theistic creationism) is scientific if it were ever to be pursued by empirical method. I say this because there isn't anything within the idea of "creation" that precludes scientific investigation.
    Right, well if that's the case then you'll have no issue showing me the multitude of scientific papers published in the respectable peer-reviewed literature that argue your case. I look forward to hearing your excuses as to why you're unable to do this.

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Among these are the concepts of realistic probability
    How does this support creationism?

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    the flawed evidential support for macro-evolution
    The evidence is not flawed, it is just sporadic because it's very old. This is no way supports your argument. The absence of evidence is not evidence for the supernatural.

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    the evidence of experience
    Such as what?

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Simply review the accomplishments of men like Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Pascal and Kelvin etc.
    Interesting coincidence that all of these men lived before the mechanism for evolution through natural selection was proposed, huh?

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    it begs the question why don’t we see more evidence of these transitional forms in the geological record? And why are there so many “gaps” between species, if all species are ultimately interconnected back to a single life form. This leads to my next point about transitional life forms are non-viable from a practical evolutionary stand point as environmental factors would spell disaster for these hybrid animals.
    The answers to which you would know if you had ever studied evolutionary biology or palaeontology. Evolution does not happen at a steady rate. Major evolutionary change happens in fits and bursts, separated by long periods of comparatively little change. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the fossil evidence is evidence against evolution and even more absurd to claim that it supports natural selection. It is also just plain wrong to claim that "transitional life-forms are non-viable from a practical evolutionary stand-point" and it's clear from this that you don't even seem to understand how evolution through natural selection works. Life doesn't evolve "towards" anything. Transitional life forms are not "necessary evils" that organisms have to stumble through in order to get somewhere else, they are completely stable forms of life that are more competitive than their relatives.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Evolution relies on the idea that things can improve and eventually become more complex. However, what we observe in the real world is that everything runs down or becomes less complex - entropy. Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. For evolution to work organisms would improve always and become more complex. We do not see this in observable science.
    What nonsense, coming from an ignorant, naïve and superficial understanding of entropy. The Earth is a non-isolated system and in such systems entropy can decrease, provided the environment's entropy makes up for it. If entropy always increased no matter what then we wouldn't be able to erect buildings, make cars, or make anything unnatural for that matter, as all of these things are more complex and ordered than their starting materials.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Creationism, at least theistic versions, are fundamentally anti-reason. Poisoning young minds by parents is their prerogative, but the state shouldn't be doing it. It's definitely not as equally valid as other ideas, seems only one step removed from state endorsed religion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    There's an entire branch of creationism that is dedicated to proving it as a scientific theory - enter Creation Science or more correctly Naturalistic creationism.Creationism can be a scientific theory,
    This entire branch, in its quest to establish creationism as a scientific theory is missing only one thing: evidence. It cannot be a scientific theory unless it has substantial peer-reviewed measurable and repeateable evidence to support it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    What nonsense, coming from an ignorant, naïve and superficial understanding of entropy. The Earth is a non-isolated system and in such systems entropy can decrease, provided the environment's entropy makes up for it. If entropy always increased no matter what then we wouldn't be able to erect buildings, make cars, or make anything unnatural for that matter, as all of these things are more complex and ordered than their starting materials.
    Exactly. The Earth receives energy from the Sun. Local entropy of plants decrease all the time, but the total entropy increases because the matter can be arranged in a more random pattern when adjacent molecules are moving faster.

    Evolution by natural selection is fundamentally about mutations in DNA (which every cell division causes by virtue of the many base pairs) leading to small changes in physiology that may be more or less adaptable to the environment. The mutations that are favourable continue to propagate, whereas the others don't.

    I don't think young Earth creationists have a strong grasp of ideas like geological timespans, or even very basic elementary science/mathematics for that matter, so it's difficult for them to conceptualise a non-creationist (ie reasoned) view.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    By the way, why do you want it being taught in schools? Faith has always been behind closed doors, that's how secular societies work - we're not Saudi Arabia here. Religious indoctrination masquerading as some sort of science is by no means progressive in any sense of the term.

    It's not embracing new ideas, it's forcing messages as facts into young minds that aren't yet capable of forming a critical response. Religious belief is fundamentally about Orwellian control, where any undesirable behaviour is marked as a "sin". It's destructive against the ability to reason or think logically/critically.

    Teach it as part of RE, there's nothing to object to there. It's not science, and shouldn't pretend to be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have fairly frequent conversations with university of life people where I tell them I'm a biologist and they proceed to inform me that evolution is false/creationism is correct. I them have to explain how they've misunderstood basic GCSE science concepts (the thermodynamics one being the most ridiculous).

    No, creationism should not be taught in school. But we really must address the widespread scientific illiteracy that embarrasses a nation that has contributed so much to science.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Many scientists support creationism and in fact lots of the evidence for evolution supports creationism in some cases more so than evolution itself. Take the lack of transitional fossils for example. If all life forms have evolved from simpler life forms there should be millions of transitional fossils available for study. These transitional fossils would be of the type showing the process of one species evolving into another. However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.
    In your imagination.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.