Creationism in schools

It is true that a religion need not be based upon or establish any philosophy but then it is rather worthless as it does not promote anything. If a religion proposed tenets that affect how a person lives then it proposes a philosophy.

A philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. If a religion does none of these then it really isn't even a religion. Religion, by definition, addresses the above.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

 

In my opinion a philosophy has to actively effect the lives of it's followers. While parts of the bible do, such as the teachings of christ, Creationism deals only with how people think the universe was created and has no real direct effect on someone's life. Therefore, while christianity in general can be considered a philosphy, creationism alone can not.

 

If there is no god then creationism and/or intelligent design has no foundation even as a belief. It is based upon the religious belief in the existance of god.

No athiests support a belief in either creationism or intelligent design as they do not believe in the existance of any god. There cannot be a separation between the belief in god, which is promoted exclusively by religion, and a belief in creationism/intelligent design.

Of course creationism/intelligent design have already been proven to be fallacious arguments by the scientific community which is why they are not nor should ever be presented as being scientific in any context. At best they could be presented as a philosophy based upon religion but even then they would fail as they are contradicted by scientific fact.

 

Yes, creationism need religion, but that does not make it a philosphy, philosophy does not need religion. You can have philosophical ideals that have nothing to do with a divine being.

 

Philosophy does not require religion but religion is a subset of philosophy.

 

I am not dnying that....but you claimed that creationism alone is a philosophy, not christianity.... Christianity is full of philisophical views, but the idea that god created the universe is not a philosophy on it's own. As I said before, a philosophy has to have some type of effect on the everyday lives of it's followers, creationism does not effect anything. The idea that god created the universe does not teach people how to live or show them a way of live. it only teaches that god created the universe. That is a religious view, but not a philosophical one.

 

Philosophy is really strange. As a philosophy major, we have to read things that stretch our minds and challenge our deeply held assumptions. Creationism would need to be taught in a a comparative religions or a mythology class that looked at lots of ancient ideas of creation. But you are right. What does and does not count as science is sort of a philosophical question. And a philosophy class could look at the definition of science and see if creationism were to fit that. Most philosophers and scientists agree a theory should have the following to be scientific
-verifiable
-falsifiable
-testable

There are probably more I am leaving out, but this is the crux. So with regards to creationism, how could one verify that claim that God exists and created the world? What observations would lead one to conclude that it is such?

Falsifiablity is just the question of what observations would prove a belief false, which means one cannot take the position that it is IMPOSSIBLE to disprove your belief.

Testability just means it needs to be able to be measured and put under a microscope.

I'm not sure God is verifiable at all, considering it's hard to say what observations would lead one to think that this being existed, aside from indirect evidence. And how could one disprove God with observations? Well this is where atheists come in with the argument from evil, but theists just respond that God has a greater plan that we cannot see. And so God doesn't seem to be falsifiable either, but it seems like God may be MORE LIKELY falsifiable than verifiable, IMHO. And I have no idea how you could possibly test creationism. Therefore it seems like creationism would not be a scientific question at all.

Perhaps God did create the universe in some way, but it would just need to be admitted it's probably not even a scientific claim to say such a thing. Forgot to add that predictability is also a characteristic of science!

 

I would agree that creationism could be addressed in a class on comparative religion and mythology. It certainly originated with ancient cultures that were highly superstitious and deeply involved in mythology. We need merely remember that the same cultures that created a belief in creationism also believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.

 

Haha yes. And were sexist against women!

 

LOL I forgot that one and while true for many religions it was not true for all religions.

 

There is some legitimate dispute about whether theology can be considered a "subject" at all. But this is an inapproriate deconstructionist sort of argument not really approriate in, say, highschool. To do so would be akin to teaching quantum chromodynamics to highschoolers.

 

I don't think theology would be appropriate, but comparative religion certainly is. we used to have a "world religions" unit in social studies which looked at the world's major religions, and focused on an outline of the origins of each one (at least what was knwn and sometimes the myths about the origins), where these religions were dominant, what some of the key components of each religion was, and some of the history of the spread of these religions.

it was pretty basic, but it made it clear that differences in religion were often related to cultural/geographical and historical factors.

from memory it was aimed at what you would call junior high - or possibly upper elementary students

 

Really? And what planet to you live on?

Is this planet devoid of religion? Is there Islam? Paganism? Christianity? Juddaism, Buddhism, Hinduism? Jainism? Confucism? Does Nitzche not talk about atheism? IS deism and the Catholic Church not an intregal part of the French Revolution?

And yet you profess that there is no need to look at these concepts in understanding the world we live in? We should bury these aspects of our world and embrace ignorance, because YOU have rejected the faith of others?

Isn't that just simple bigotry? The projection of your prostelytizing faith on others by denying the validity of anything but your own faith choice?

I do not understand how atheists can claim the mantel of enlightenment and tolerance and them makes silly claims like this.

 

While theology probably isn't a valid subject as it tends to focus on Christian brainwashing as opposed to being a valid and unbiased study of comparative religions. Even "comparative religion" is white-washed in our schools as the coursed don't typically address the fallacies of each.

But back to the origin of creationism which really developed during a period when mankind was basically without any scientific knowledge. The question at the time, and even today, is, "Where did we come from" and it is a valid question. The problem was that 2000 years ago the religious leaders didn't have any clue as to where we came from so they simply made up a story. The story, while based upon ignorance, satisfied the People who were even more ignorant that the religious leaders.

We're not nearly as ignorant of science today as our ancestors were 2000 years ago. A five year old today probably knows more about science today than the foremost scholars did 2000 years ago when the myth of creationism was invented to satisfy ignorant and superstitious people.

Why some individuals continue to believe in a mythical story created by ignorant religious leaders 2000 years ago does remain a mystery.

 

Interesting, as atheism emerges in the 19th century and women were still denied the right to vote, I wonder how atheism can make a claim to be more enlightened regarding the treatment of women? Particularly when Susan B. Anthony and other early sufferagists are anything but atheist in their arguementation - as are the Saudi women fighting that oppression.

We realize that many atheists disagree with religion, but, once again, I will state that you don't have to be a jerk in disagreeing with it. The fact that something emerged from the time of mythology (ignoring the fact that almost all of the period mythologies are now debunked) does not mean that something is a wrong.

After all, math and science also have their origins in this period, and it would be considered crass and enormously illogical to claim that math was a myth based on its date origin.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is a literal approach to creationism that has been repeatedly rejected by courts in the US and is not taught in classrooms. There is also a growing voice of Christianity (including the official doctrine of the Catholic Church) that accepts evolution as fact and has no problem reconciling faith and the reality of evolution.

Darwin himself made the same claim when he published his work.

And yet here we are a century later, 50 years AFTER Creationism was elminated from classrooms, and atheists are still bleeting that evolution eliminates religion - even as the obviousness of that claim's futility is readily demonstrated.

Simply put, you will simply have to find a new club to bash Christians with.

 

I have never even insinuated that evolution has anything to do with religion and it doesn't. Evolution and the theories related to it are purely scientific and while some Christian sects do embrace evolution because it is both based upon actual physical evidence and supported by scientific methodolgy that does not imply that all do.

Obviously since there is no actual evidence of the existance of any supernatural beings and the fact that science does not address the "supernatural" but instead addresses the "natural" there is no foundation for creationism in a science classroom.

Yes, math and science did have their roots going back over 2000 years but there is a fundamental difference. Both Math and Science changed when evidence was presented or discovered that made assumptions false. Creationism, for the most part, has not change. Tens of millions of Christians, for example, still believe in the "Young Earth" even though such beliefs have been shown to be completely false. Even the "seven days of creation" have been disproven scientifically. We know how stars and planets form. We know how the universe began.

We are almost certain that life evolved spontaniously and have made great strides in duplicating it in the lab. For example we know that organic compounds can be made from inorganic compounds. We know that DNA strands can form from organic compounds. We haven't created life in the laboratory yet but we know that we will and it's only a matter of time.

Finally I wonder why making statements based upon truth would be considered "Christian Bashing" by anyone. Do the Christian and Muslim religions, which are fundamentally different sects of the same religion, both have a long history of denying equality to women? I don't believe anyone could contest that as not being a fact. That denial of equality continues up to the present day. That doesn't mean that individual Christians don't or can't treat women with equality but overall those that believe in these "religions" do not.

 

Creationism should be taught at comedy clubs only.

 

#1 - Science by definition deals with the supernatural. Not all things are testable in a laboratory, but not all things need to be.

We see this with the claim of elusive dark matter - no way to venture and test for it, but there are effects that are discernable and point toward 'something' being there. THe inquest is to search for it.

We also see this in the documentation of 'supernatural' events in a way that applies logical thought processes to their documentation to produce preponderance of the evidence cases. It is a similiar logical trail that produces convictions in court cases without the ability test all aspects of a criminal case. We have documented miracles, callings, answered prayers etc. THe question as to whether it is proof or not? Whether is consists of compelling documentation or not? Amazing how faith seems to affirm or deny the veracity of a claim rather than the veracity of claim and its documentation in most cases does it not? Atheists are no more or less guilty in this area than any other faith choice. We often see what we want to in these things, and the challenge is to ensure that we are being honest in the questioning of our own faith .... rather than just demanding it of others.

Science has definitely helped investigative processes in many, many fields, from carbon dating of materials in history, to statistical analysis of culture and socilogical issues. The hane wave of super natural?

Well, there is no way to 'test' the Big Bang, and no knowledge whatsoever about where a mass of pure energy (created only in stars in the modern universe through fusion - in stars that did not exist yet), and no knowledge whatsoever as to what set it off. Yet science does not deal with the supernatural does it?

#2 - what you call truth many of us call insults. When you insinuate, without evidence, that our beliefs are the result of a period of mythology and simply dismiss our faith with a hand wave .... that is not truth. THat is derision and disrespect.

The 'truth' is that mathematics, science, numbers, the alphabet, etc. all arise during this period of myths. Yet for some reason, they remain relevant and necessary. The 'myths' from that period that we now know are myths have faded, science, math, etc. .... and a few religions from that period remain.

Why?

Again, if you are an atheist, and I realize this shocks atheists, we already know that you don;t think there is a God. Its self evident. If you think he is a Myth, then that is a claim that requires support. If you support is something as aloof as claiming the date itself makes it suspect .... well, we see the lack of 'truth' in that statement when said claim invalidates many obviously true things ... indeed, such a claim undermines the very scientific basis of your own argument - which, last time I checked with ancient Greek thinkers so often claimed by atheists, emerged from the same time.

All you are saying is your tools suck (which we already know is your opinion) and our tools are great (which we already know is your opinion). Absent that case is anything that looks like reasoned support.

The great 'truth' is that you have no more evidence upon which to conlcude that there is no God than we do in concluding that there is a God. An open mind would be called for in this case, rather than a claim of 'truth' in atheism - its simply no more or less true than ANY other faith choice - except maybe scientology and pastafarianism.

The evidence is inconclusive in both cases, but atheists have no relationships with nothing. And that stands in sharp contrast with the relationships that billions have devloped with the Creator and God.

Simply put my friend, that is the truth of the matter. And when someone rebuts you, it isn't to counter your 'truth' about our faith, it is to correct the egregious thinking atheists so often foust upon us.

 

I'm glad you accept that evolution and Christianity can go together, evolution does not disprove God. It makes me respect you more. God could still be the ultimate "cause" of everything, but evolution would still be a part of it somehow.

I think a lot of the reason that many atheists have a visceral reaction to Christianity in the United States is first of all they felt like they were lied to since most grew up in the religion and then found out later the Bible says a lot of things that pastors don't really like to address. Second of all, many outspoken (maybe a minority) try to push creationism in schools when it has no place being there and say evolution is a lie done by evil scientists. Thirdly Christianity from around Reagan to now has been extremely homophobic, but that is slowly changing with some denominations, such as Lutherans or Presbyterians, allowing gay clergy. I have relatives that fit both of these versions of Christianity many atheists DON'T like, so I have first hand experience with these kinds of people, as I was also one before I de-converted about a year and a half ago.

And then there is the whole idea of if you don't believe my religion you burn for eternity. That isn't exactly a welcoming mat either. But I think dialogue is better, as long as the crazy nuts in the Christian community stop the gay bashing and evolution denying, and the bitter atheists stop attacking reasonable Christians. There can be a truce of agreeing to disagree, or simply focusing more on LOGIC and argumentative disagreements instead of the attacking. For the record, I don't think believing in God is necessarily an unreasonable position.

 

You are mistaken. The unfalsifiable claim is of the beleiver, not the skeptic.

Russels Teapot.

- Bertrand Russell

You cannot reverse the burdon of proof or give it equal bearing when the burdon is yours no matter how many ways you try to put it.

 

An easy way I remember burnden of proof is the one who is making the major positive claim. Like that God exists. Then it is up to the believer to prove that God exists, since he/she is the one making the positive claim to reality. However, if the atheists starts by saying God does not exist, then that is a positive claim and puts the burden of proof on the atheist. And Bertrand Russell's teapot is a good example.

 

Well, its interesting you put things in the context of lying, because many Christians have a visceral reaction toward atheism because it is often based on lies about our faith.

Creationism is based on the Old Testament account of Creation and the story of Adam and Eve. It ism, in most cases, the first three pages of the Bible and the entire point of the story(ies) can be summed up by saying that God is central and humans are imperfect. There are then over a thousand pages of history, context, failure, triumphs, and, for Christians, the New Testament and the life and teachings of one Jesus Christ become central.

And yet, for some reason, atheists spend an inordinate amount of time on Creationism and ignore the rest of the Bible, its teachings, and indeed or doctrinal concepts to essentially castigate us as uneducated bafoons.

So, what is the lie? That some Christians honestly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible? Most Christians these days accept evolution as fact, albeit as the chosen instrument of God. THe polling data that most atheist trump to state that creationism is alive an well, when you look at the polling, are essentially questions that ask respondant to accept evolution without God - bascically, atheists are asking people to renouce their faith through polling. It would be no different than asking a atheist to accept evolution WITH God as a guiding hand in evolution.

Yet we are shocked and lied to when Christians do not accept the atheist statements of evolution?

And it gets worse. I cannot count the number of times I have watched atheists twist our faith. Whether you admit it or not, you do it as well. Hell is barely mentioned in the Bible, and it is certainly not a central tenet of Jesus's teaching accept to acknowledge that yes, Satan is real and so is Hell. The central tenet is a relationship with a loving God, in building a relationship with him to be a better person, freed from the shackles of sin, and closer to God. Yet this concept is brushed aside in an attempt to castigate Christianity as stooped in fear. Why? And who is lying?

Worse, the extremists, rarely corrected, very often lift passages from the Old Testament, to accuse Christianity of being stooped in violence, intolerance, and outright genocide. By dint of my faith alone, I have been accussed of murder, rape, and even genocide right here on this forum. That kind of treatment, indeed its accusations of rape and massacre are enshrined in works by Hitchens, et. al. and they, if not untrue (Christians have done bad things), the deliberately scoped context that ignores the reality of violence in all other areas IS a lie - its called a lie of omission.

So when I see atheists talking about feeling like they are lied too ... I wonder where their concern is for honesty in their side. Pointing out somone else's faults does not eliminate your own - nor does it dimish the reality of God.

It merely begs the question - what are you fighting?

 

We've been through this.

Logic dictates that you back up any claim you make. Make all the excuses you want, the truth is that they are excuses.

The reality of the statement is that you have no evidence, not even and explainable investigative process, upon which to base you claim that there is no God. I.e. there is no logic in your atheism.

Make all the excuses you want, but you can provide strong arguementation to eliminate the absurd. Well, educated people can anyway.

If atheists have problems being unable to prove that magic pink unicorn they make up themselves are not real .... that is a problem for atheisms lack of logic.

That you cannot accept this .... well, that is because you faith will not allow you too. That simple.

 

Mythology should not be taught as truth.

 

Neither should denial of truth.