Creationism vs. evolution in schools: Does creationism qualify as science?

  • Yes it does.

    Creationism does count as a science, but giving students the option to have it is different than forcing it being learned. If students feel more comfortable with creationism than evolution than they should be allowed to choose what they learn. Science is like a religion and forcing one belief on society is wrong to do so.

  • Yes creationism is a science

    Evolution is still a theory, regardless of what the scientific community says. Creationism is an alternative theory that supplies a different perspective. Since both theories rely on circumstantial evidence their is no way to prove that either theory is correct.

    The engine behind evolutionary theory has always been chaos or destruction. The origin of our solar system was supposedly derived from raw natural materials randomly floating through space after an unimaginably big explosion resulting in the creation of all know matter. After billions of years the earth finally formed living life where by this life gradually grew more complex through mutation, natural selection, and adaption. It's presumably still a occurring to this day.

    Creationism (as well as intelligent design) theorize that an all powerful being created the universe and all complex living life on earth. Unlike evolution creationism presumes that life is already made complex, without the need of mutations. Just to clear things up Creationism is the creation of the earth, universe and everything by God in 7 days (some take it literally some don't, I do). Intelligent design simply states that a being of superior intelligence created the world in some way that has yet to become known (remember it's still circumstantial evidence).

    The biggest flaw with evolution is that nothing good comes from chaos, if you explode something in to oblivion it won't generate organized life, destruction only generates more destruction. Creationism has taken in to account this troubling fact and claims that a perfect God created a complete perfect world.

    The fossil record is another problem, contrary to what many people have been lead to believe there are no transitional fossils to this date. Paleontologists have been searching for decades for "the fossil" and have only come up dry. The current fossil classification system relies on time periods to classify fossils, but they use fossils to classify periods. I personally dislike circular reasoning when it comes to "science." Furthermore after every period of time there is always an ELE event (extinction level event). Creationism and Christianity have taken this into account by using one massive flood instead of multiple ELEs.

    Carbon dating is also a flawed method. The system relies on carbon 14 to measure how old a substance is. The amount of carbon 14 in the object of speculation directly correlates with the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere at the time of it's demise. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere and absorbed by the object second by second and changes with each passing year. If you don't know the exact amount in the atmosphere at that time then you can't possible hope to accurately measure object. Feel free to look it up at www.Truthingenesis.Com/.../carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-...‎

    With these flaws in the theory of evolution, another theory is entirely appropriate, however absurd people make it to be.

    Also GWL-CPA, I have a God given brain that enables me to think for myself, case in point, human ribs can grow back so please have some courtesy.

  • Yes, it's what we need for a greater nation

    It qualifies as bibical sience look at all the evidence. All those fossils how? An animal must be buiried imedietly to become a fossil this is next to imposible. So how do we have so many fossils? A great flodd would have killed all these animals and buiried them quickly it makes so much sense. Heck yes we should teach bibical sience to prove the bible.

  • Of course not.

    Creationism is not science, it is a superstitious religious belief. Nothing in "creationism" can be verified by scientific methodology; it relies solely on Faith.

    Are we talking about "old Earth creationism" where the earth is only 10,000 years old.

    What exactly is there to teach about creationism.

    Do you think anyone with a brain believes that the earth is only 10,000 years old?

    Do you think that anyone believes that a creature called "God" took one of Adams rib and made Eve?

    By the way, a man and woman have the same number of ribs; but, how can that be in Adam gave one away?

  • Not by the very definition.

    Science is the methodology for studying the NATURAL world. It must be TESTABLE, OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE, and FALSIFIABLE.
    Creationism meets not a single one of the above bolded terms. There is not a shred of research supporting creationism- all creationists do is try (poorly) to debunk evolution, as though that would prove their claims correct by default (it wouldn't).

    The ridiculous number of Americans that actually believe in creationism, and that humans were "created" as is within the last 10,000 years is a major red flag as to why we are at the bottom of the barrel among developed nations in education.

  • Of course not

    Science is based on a logical, testable and provable set of steps that leave no room for doubt. Where a belief differs from this is in the very fact that it is a BELIEF. The great thing about science is that it doesn't matter what you believe, it is still true.

    You can believe that the universe was created by a series of challenges set out to a doll in order to prove its worth, but that doesn't make it any more true than believing it was created out of nothing by a 'god'.

    Creationism can be taught at home or at a church as part of learning about a particular set of beliefs, but to teach it as a possibility of our existence is undeniably wrong. Sure science does not have all the answers, but at least it is honest about it and treats the journey to discovery with wonder and humility.

    I recall Richard Dawkins once comparing the idea of debating with a creationist to a geographer debating with a flat-earther or a reproductive scientist debating with a proponent of the stork theory of reproduction. It is just laughable.

    Posted by: cp8
  • Science is objective, must be observable in nature

    Science examines the natural order, not suspensions of the natural order. Once you bring in a designer, you have to answer questions like "Who created the creator?" and "Given the human condition, where did this creator go?" These are questions science could never address

    Sign a White House Petition:
    Mandate Equal Time to Instruction of Evolution for Faith-Based Schools Receiving Tax Rebates or Other Public Assistance.

  • It is the unproven viewpoint of one section of the population.

    The most prevalent form of creationism is that an all-powerful father being made all matter and energy, established natural laws, and orchestrated all mechanical processes. There is absolutely no evidence for this outside of an ancient religious tome. The only form of creationism which could be accepted by even a marginally scientifically-minded individual is that said deity manipulated probability to ensure the gradual development of matter and life. However, even this cannot be taught as science, and would be more legitimate in a philosophy or theology class.

  • Creationism is Theology

    Creationism is not scientific and has no scientific basis. Therefore, it does not belong in a Science class. It undermines any teaching of scientific method or factual analysis which is necessary for something to be listed as scientific. Also, it teaches inequality, lending an illegal authority to it over other religious teaching. No religious teaching belongs in science class unless its a study on how it affects the brain.

  • Creationism Is Not Scientific

    Creationism has no reliable documentary evidence to support itself as science. Science is something which can be tested and proved wrong or right and expanded by further testing. Disputes in the process of evolution, for example, are widely differing between creationists and scientists. Creationists believe that man was made as he is today while science can show a number of possible distant ancestors of modern man.

  • Creationism is not a science.

    Creationism cannot be qualified as a science as is not based on any sort of scientific observations, but solely on ancient religious stories. While some people may choose to believe in creationism and may try to combine some aspects of it with science, it is certainly does not qualify as a science in itself.

  • No, hell no

    Evolution actually can be argued for. Creationism is a completely absurd religious concept that only the hicks of the South learn.

    Really, how complicated is it to learn such a simple and idiotic concept, that has no proof for it whatsoever (the Bible is not considered proof, it have too many contradicitons in it to be considered a reliable source)?

    You might as well give the kids ant farms and let them grow lima beans, because that is the grade level of the reasoning of Creationism.

  • I do believe creationism should be taught in schools.

    I do believe that creationism should be taught in schools. However, as this question pertains to the topic of whether creationism qualifies as science, I have to check no. Creationism should be taught in schools though, in the same mythology studies as ancient Egypt, Greek and Roman legends and myths.

    As far as science, there is no debate. The fundamental requirement of science is that the evidence must lead to the conclusion, not the other way around. Science must form models based on evidence. Models that can make predictions. Predictions that can be tested and confirmed. Evolution has been tested, repeatedly. It has constructed countless models, which have demonstrated accurate predictions and confirmed hypotheses. It is the basis of the entire medical field, has constructed the forensic science that we deem concrete enough to convict and imprison people on. It has cured diseases, treated illnesses, and prevented viruses. What models and predictions has creationism brought about? What contributions to medicine and science has it made? How has it built on existing science, or shaped future sciences after it? No, creationism should not be taught in science class, as it is not science. Put it in religious mythology or theology studies where it belongs.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.