Should evolution and creationism be taught in schools as two opposing points of view?

Posted by: DefenderOfTheTruth

  • Yes

  • No

32% 7 votes
68% 15 votes
  • No. Creationism does not completely go against evolution unless of course you take the side of the immutability of species (species will never change even one small bit). Creationism admits generally that things like the finches on the Galapagos Islands can evolve but yet things like humans coming from apes did not occur. I won't get into a debate about which is right, as that doesn't belong in this section. Creationists generally believe in micro-evolution but not macroevolution where as evolutionists believe in both micro and macroevolution.

  • Evolution is not a "point of view" It's a FACT.

  • No more than alchemy should be taught alongside chemistry.

    Posted by: A341
  • Creationism is not science and to even bring it up as an opposing view to evolution is an insult to science.

    Posted by: SNP1
  • that would be the equivelent of teaching alchemy alongside chemistry as an "opposing viewpoint".

  • sorry but creationism is not a science

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T17:01:22.6028008-05:00
Marcoevolution is not a fact. There is absolutely no transitional forms and no proof what so ever that humans came from apes. Sure they are similair but they didn't come from them. Also, explain to me how a bacteria's chytochrome C is closer to that of a horse than a yeast? By the though of evolution, the yeast should be closer but it's not.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T17:10:28.2419779-05:00
@Lt.Harris You're right. Humans didn't come from apes. That's not how evolution works. Humans and apes have a common ancestor. You really don't have a clue what evolution is. That's the problem.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T17:13:55.4763239-05:00
Evolution is evolution. There's only one kind. The only difference between micro and macro is the time for the change to happen.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T17:24:09.3211768-05:00
@Lt.Harris That's very simple! Cytochrome c is a highly conserved ~12 kDa protein consisting of a single 104 amino acid peptide with a single heme group, which is covalently attached to Cys14 and Cys17. Because of its ubiquitous nature and sequence homology, cytochrome c has been used as a model protein for molecular evolution. More recently, cytochrome c has been identified as an important mediator in apoptotic pathways. The release of mitochondrial cytochrome c into the cytoplasm stimulates apoptosis and is commonly used as an indicator of the apoptotic process in the cell. Serum cytochrome c levels may be an indicator of therapy-induced cell death burden. Under proapoptotic conditions, two Bcl-2 family proteins, Bax and Bak associate with the voltage-dependent anion channel component of the permeability transition (PT) pores on the outer membrane of the mitochondria. This calcium-dependent process allows the release of cytochrome c from the intermembrane space of the mitochondria into the cytoplasm. The initial release of cytochrome c into the cytoplasm can result in the association of cytochrome c with the inositol-3-phosphate receptor (IP3 receptor) which acts as a calcium channel on the outer membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum. Subsequent release of calcium ions into the cytoplasm can induce apoptosis. Cytochrome c also participates in the cytosolic caspase proteolytic cascade of apoptosis as a component of the apoptotic protease activating factor (Apaf). The association of cytochrome c with Apaf-1 results in the formation of the apoptosome protein complex which can recruit and activate pro-caspase 9 (Apaf-3). Activation of caspase 9 then facilitates the downstream activation of caspases 3 and 7 resulting in apoptosis. The cytochrome c-mediated release of calcium from the ER helps to initiate the apoptotic cascade since activation of both caspase 9 and caspase 3 is calcium-dependent. So you see, it's obvious that chytochrome C is closer to that of a horse.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T17:32:13.5154470-05:00
1. I do have an idea what evolution is but I've been in public school and they specifically told us about how apes are our ancestors 2. The difference between macro and micro is not just the time for the change to happen it is how big the change is. 3. Very nice explanation on chytochrome C and I accept that now however next time you should cite your source.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T17:55:11.7960709-05:00
1. Apes are our ancestors. That doesn't mean we come from apes. We ARE apes! 2. Wrong. Cite your source. 3. That just came off the top of my head.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T18:19:58.6476709-05:00
1. That was what I was taught in school so... 2. My source is my current text book Exploring Creation: Biology by Dr. J. Wiles 3. Liar. You did get that from a source and you should cite it.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T18:41:19.3947394-05:00
1. http://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes 2. The only source I can find for your hypothesis is from David A. Plaisted, who is a creationist. Not a scientist. Http://www.Cs.Unc.Edu/~plaisted/ce/challenge8.Html 3. You can't assert I'm a liar without proof I'm a liar. I can prove YOU are a liar just by you claiming that "Marcoevolution is not a fact."
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T18:45:00.3816709-05:00
Creationists are scientists. If you notice, Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, and many more scientists believed in creation. Say, to the world, that they are not scientists cause they have both changed the way the world sees, well, pretty much everything. How is macroevolution a fact? Give me an unbiased source that addresses both sides and determines that macroevolution has more proof. I believe what I believe. I've never stated that there is proof of God yet you have had the audacity to state that macroevolution has absolute difinitive proof.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T18:55:25.4424709-05:00
@Lt.Harris The book "Exploring Creation: Biology by Dr. J. Wiles" is published by Apologia Educational Ministries, which makes it anything but a science text book. May I ask what school you are going to? What they are teaching you is nothing but nonsense. A review of this book on Amazon.Com states: "1st and foremost: this book deliberately presents falsehood as scientific truth, including inaccurate data with no referenced sources. For example, the graphs of global temperature in the section on global warming. 2nd: it presents (or invents) controversial issues and then encourages students to decide for themselves; however, the arguments for and against are incomplete and inaccurate, thus heavily biased. For example, the section on the geologic record claims that scientists have no way to know the ages of fossils, then omits any discussion of isotopic dating. 3rd: There are substantial, confusing errors, such as incorrectly defining the term "allele" and then using that term incorrectly for most of the module (aka chapter) but correctly (!) for the last section of the module. I am a devout Christian with an interdisciplinary science degree (B.S.) from Stanford University. My upper level coursework focused on the Biosphere. I am appalled at the content of this book, and will not use it again."
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:02:18.0493242-05:00
I am currently homeschooled (if you have any problems with that look at the fact that both my siblings are on full rides and my brother was accepted into the Naval Academy, one of the toughest colleges to gain access to). I am glad that you are Christian. I find that the book is accurate and I have compared it with other books. Friends who have used it have successfully gone on to be biologists. Don't know their exact field although I know one is a biomedical engineer. Anyway, the book is not the subject of the discussion. I would like to see you provide what source gives you the audacity to say that macroevolution is proven. Christianity goes against macroevolution so I would also like a small explanation as to how that works for you. I don't doubt that you are a Christian but I have never heard of a Christian evolutionist before.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:06:28.1801440-05:00
@Lt.Harris You are confusing belief with knowledge. Scientists like Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton may have believed in a "god", but they never claimed to KNOW there was a "god". Believing something doesn't make it true. Knowing something as true requires evidence that proves it is true. That's the scientific method. The scientific method is not used for creationism. Faith is used for that. Faith is just an excuse to believe something without evidence.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:08:24.5220709-05:00
I never stated that God's existence could be proven. You ignored almost everything I asked you about in the post before yours. Could you go back and clarify please?
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:19:53.3244709-05:00
I am now going to question your Christianity as a ruse due to the fact that your profile page states you are an atheist. Unless of course that is a mistake, I would like you to take back your statement of being a Christian. Religion is something to be taken completely seriously. Even an atheist can admit that as atheism is as much a religion as creationism is science.
SNP1 says2014-05-05T19:21:07.7052709-05:00
"Even an atheist can admit that as atheism is as much a religion as creationism is science." You are correct, atheism is not a religion and creationism is not science.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:25:49.6908709-05:00
I'm not a Christian. I was quoting a book review from a Christian. If you really care about truth and your education, you had best use the internet and REAL scientific websites to get your information. Evolution is evolution. You can take ANY two species and trace them back to their common ancestor. That's how you prove evolution is a fact. Go to the Museum of Natural History and see it for yourself. You claim you "have never heard of a Christian evolutionist before". I can name a famous one. The Pope. Your homeschooling may be good in most areas, but when it comes to science, you are being lied to in favor of religion. There is overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact. DNA alone proves it. The fossil record confirms it. Http://www.Talkorigins.Org/faqs/evolution-fact.Html http://www.Talkorigins.Org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.Html http://www.Talkorigins.Org/faqs/comdesc/
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:26:30.7188709-05:00
Religion is defined one way by the Meriam Webster Dictionary as "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group." Thus, the disbelief in a deity falls under that and is considered a religion.
SNP1 says2014-05-05T19:29:29.1048709-05:00
Lt.Harris: Let's look at the FIRST listed in the Webster "the belief in a god or in a group of gods" and the second in Webster "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods" and what about the Oxford "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". You are using the least common definition, but if we go off of the most common definition that is shared between different dictionaries, atheism is NOT a religion.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:29:57.8868709-05:00
Atheism is not a disbelief in a deity. Atheism is the lack of a belief of a deity.
SNP1 says2014-05-05T19:31:37.2276709-05:00
Nonprohet: Disbelieve means not to believe, which is the same thing as lack of belief.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:31:42.8748709-05:00
True but even the least common definition is a definition nonetheless. The definitions can coexist and in this case, are meant to coexist from what I can tell (unless you have proof otherwise) and thus, atheism can be considered a religion. Eitherway, nonprophet either is lying on his profile or is lying in his arguement.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:33:15.6855704-05:00
You say it is the lack of belief, then why do so many proclaimed atheists make it a point to say that they don't believe in a god and counter all arguments after that. You are ignoring half of my posts nonprophet. Stick with all of them or just don't reply.
SNP1 says2014-05-05T19:33:57.1503704-05:00
Lt.Harris: But the definition you use is limited to the Webster dictionary. The common definition is shared between almost every dictionary I have found, which means that it is best to use the definition that is commonly used and to ignore the one you are using.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:38:35.0019704-05:00
Dictionary.Com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." While it states that it is especially with a superhuman agency, it does not say exclusively. Atheists believe in something, whether it be abortions, gay marriage, gun rights, etc. Belief in any right is a belief nonetheless. " Oxford Dictionary: "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." Yet again, I have found that the majority of atheists I have talked to have considered the big bang theory, abortion, WHATEVER they believe in, they almost all have something they hold to supreme importance and that that thing is surpased in importance by no other item.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:38:51.7344709-05:00
When an atheist says "I don't believe in a god" It's not the same as if they said "I believe there's no god". The first one "I don't believe" is a lack of a belief. The second one "I believe" is a belief. Atheism is a lack of a belief, which means it can't be a religion. It's like "bald" not being a hair color. No hair can't have a color. No belief can't be a religion.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:40:41.5896709-05:00
Yes but in all the debates I've had either on websites or live, I have almost always been told that there is no god. Belief in a deity is not the only thing considered extreme belief.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:41:44.9328309-05:00
@nonprophet...Answer my question. Are you a Christian or did you lie in your posts.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:42:21.4370649-05:00
I'm not ignoring your posts! I can't keep up with them. You read my post that contained a book review by a Christian and because you didn't read that carefully, you assumed I was a Christian, which made me have to go back and explain to you that I'm not a Christian. So instead of reading super fast and mouthing off even faster, try reading what I say with care and wait for me to respond before you go off on another tangent. I'm trying to answer all of your questions and all you do is IGNORE them.
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:45:05.8930935-05:00
Ah. I see my mistake. You used an entire quote that took up the entire page. My apologies. Still, please provide a source that definitively proves macroevolution.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:45:38.5512709-05:00
You claim "The book is not the subject of the discussion." Why not? You brought it up. It's published. Why can't it be discussed? You based your opinion about evolution based on that book! It is the subject of the discussion!
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T19:48:06.7906935-05:00
My opinion on evolution is not based on the book. My opinion on evolution is based on what I've heard/read from multiple sources. My only thing about the book not being argued was that there are mixed reviews especially considering what I've seen in my personal life from the use of the book and I was going to try and stay on topic with whether or not macroevolution is real.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T19:49:14.0422935-05:00
I GAVE YOU A SOURCE that definitively proves macroevolution. How about you go READ it instead of keep asking for it?!? Http://www.Talkorigins.Org/faqs/comdesc/
Lt.Harris says2014-05-05T20:02:54.5004709-05:00
After having skimmed the source and read some chapters, I find that there are some flaws. 1. The author specifically states that there are no genealogical lines between hominid animals as there are "to many links" however thus all that can be gone on is the looks, not the complete build. Australopithecus afarensis was shown to be closer to an ape than before and to be close in that family. Just because they are similair doesn't mean they evolved from a common anscestor. I did not read the whole thing as I am not inclined in the biological field however that struck me as a problem. He also states that genes have been definitively changed however that is only small changes and absolutely nothing complex such as macroevolution. He also fails to explain how a simple life form could evolve. Simply, if there is no need for something, why should it be? There was no need for a small tiny organism to become a fish and a fish to grow legs and for organs such as eyes to be produced. How could something that perfect come out of nothing or a more basic anscestor that did not have those organs? That is one thing he failed to explain.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T20:24:05.0580709-05:00
@Lt.Harris All you can say is "He also fails to explain..." You didn't read the whole thing. He explains everything. Seriously, don't ask questions and don't ask for proof if you're just going to ignore the answers. The proof is there. If you really think you can prove a Ph.D. Wrong, you can write your paper and submit it to science, I am 99.9% sure that any paper than can prove evolution is wrong would win a Nobel Prize. Be my guest and write your paper. Otherwise don't make ridiculous claims like "Marcoevolution is not a fact. " or "There is absolutely no transitional forms and no proof what so ever that humans came from apes." All you do is make yourself look like an idiot. (no offense).
nonprophet says2014-05-05T20:29:40.4268709-05:00
"There was no need for a small tiny organism to become a fish and a fish to grow legs and for organs such as eyes to be produced." What do you think has a better chance of survival...A blind fish, or a fish with eyes that can see it's predictors and hunt for food better? That's the "need" for eyes. Seriously, you sound way too stupid to even talk about this with.
nonprophet says2014-05-05T20:48:14.2044709-05:00
If you're "not inclined in the biological field" then you are not inclined to deny evolution as a fact. How about you get inclined and get a REAL science book about biology instead of wasting your time on books published by Apologia Educational Ministries? Either you care about what you learn is the truth or you just want to be gullible enough to go around believing what you are taught by people who deliberately present falsehood as scientific truth.
SNP1 says2014-05-05T21:01:58.2279859-05:00
Lt.Harris, you should really go to a public school. Getting home schooled might be great for certain things, but you can be (and it looks like you are) subject to A LOT of biased information.
nonprophet says2014-05-06T09:44:24.8535194-05:00
Bettabreeder said, "better to understand both ... Right" Um, no. I don't have time to research every fairy tale made up. There is only 1 truth and that's the one I'm interested in. You might as well teach how the stork brings babies and drops them through the chimney, in schools.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-05-06T09:46:29.6379194-05:00
http://thebest404pageever.com/swf/John_Ritter_defeats_Magic.swf
occupied says2014-05-06T11:12:39.0810408-05:00
No for the millionth time
Lt.Harris says2014-05-10T13:28:18.3727140-05:00
Now that I'm back on: See, you say that the need for eyes was necassary to make predators but if life started out from one form here was no need for these tiny little organisms to grow bigger and thus need eyes. Why did they have to grow bigger? What was the need for fish to develop legs and move onto land? Why was there a need for trees to be created? Oxygen isn't an answer as the majority of oxygen doesn't come from trees but instead by phytoplankton.
nonprophet says2014-05-10T13:43:17.3704638-05:00
@Lt.Harris You just don't get it. Evolution doesn't happen out of "need". It happens, because it's part of biology. There is no "goal" for evolution. There is no set way evolution is trying to get to. Evolution is simply change. Obviously it's not needed, since the "little organisms" you speak of still exits and survive. It happens anyway, naturally.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.