I believe creationism is a crock of **** and has no business in an academic setting

[B.O.L.A.]

Give me a fucking break.

[CtotheT]

tell me what you think happened then? Where did matter come from?

[NorthMass]

Give me a fucking break.

What is wrong with presenting evolution and creationism side by side, and letting the students decide which one they believe?

[MantisShrimp]

Give me a fucking break.

Fantastically defended and unassailable talking points, dissenters beware

[MantisShrimp]

What is wrong with presenting evolution and creationism side by side, and letting the students decide which one they believe?

Students are not in public school to adopt life and death myth ideologies. Nothing wrong with presenting religion in a philosophy class but to put it along side science is bizarre and stupid, that's like presenting Geometry and Civics as conflicting worldviews. They're just different subjects, not mutually exclusive. And science and creationism are not mutually exclusive either.

[ZexCui]

What is wrong with presenting evolution and creationism side by side, and letting the students decide which one they believe?

lol, yeah let's also teach them in math class that 2 + 2 could equal 4 or 5 or that maybe aliens built the eqyptian pyramids and let them decide which they believe.

i hope you were just being sarcastic. somehow, i don't think you were being sarcastic though.

[NorthMass]

Students are not in public school to adopt life and death myth ideologies. Nothing wrong with presenting religion in a philosophy class but to put it along side science is bizarre and stupid, that's like presenting Geometry and Civics as conflicting worldviews. They're just different subjects, not mutually exclusive. And science and creationism are not mutually exclusive either.

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both? It is impossible to prove either theory wrong, and to say the big bang is 100% fact is wrong.

[ZexCui]

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both?

creationism isn't science so why would you teach it in a science class?

[NorthMass]

creationism isn't science so why would you teach it in a science class?

It is relevant when you are discussing how the universe was created.

[ZexCui]

It is relevant when you are discussing how the universe was created.

but it isn't science. to teach it in science class would give children the impression that it is science.

besides, there is nothing to be even gained from teaching whatever you would teach about creationism because it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions about or describe the mechanics of the big bang. what utility would there be in saying "god did it"? science describes the mechanics behind certain observable phenomena (spelling?). is there a creation myth that even attempts to describe the mechanics of the big bang?

in short, creationism can't be taught in science because it is just completely made up and has no factual basis or valid scientific evidence. creationist just never followed the scientific method when making their creation myth.

if you want creationism to be taught, it would have to be in a mythology class.

[Geno]

Students are not in public school to adopt life and death myth ideologies. Nothing wrong with presenting religion in a philosophy class but to put it along side science is bizarre and stupid, that's like presenting Geometry and Civics as conflicting worldviews. They're just different subjects, not mutually exclusive. And science and creationism are not mutually exclusive either.

God damned - you said it best yet again. Enjoy the reps.

[Geno]

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both? It is impossible to prove either theory wrong, and to say the big bang is 100% fact is wrong.

Wipe the drool from your chin - it is unapealling.

[user1245464]

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both? It is impossible to prove either theory wrong, and to say the big bang is 100% fact is wrong.

The Big Bang theory is most certainly falsifiable. It just happens that every time we try to falsify it, we find more evidence to suggest it is correct. Creationism, on the other hand, is not falsifiable, and is therefore not within the definition of science or a scientific theory.

[NorthMass]

but it isn't science. to teach it in science class would give children the impression that it is science.

besides, there is nothing to be even gained from teaching whatever you would teach about creationism because it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions about or describe the mechanics of the big bang. what utility would there be in saying "god did it"? science describes the mechanics behind certain observable phenomena (spelling?). is there a creation myth that even attempts to describe the mechanics of the big bang?

in short, creationism can't be taught in science because it is just completely made up and has no factual basis or valid scientific evidence. creationist just never followed the scientific method when making their creation myth.

if you want creationism to be taught, it would have to be in a mythology class.

There is no proof creationism is a myth, just like there is no proof the big bang is 100% stone cold fact. The big bang is a theory, and creationism is a religious belief, so why not present both since both are the most common ideas to how the universe was created? Personally I think God did the big bang himself, which I guess would be a combo of the two.

[SurfOnSilver]

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both? It is impossible to prove either theory wrong, and to say the big bang is 100% fact is wrong.

lol, creationism has no evidence to support it's claims and is therefore as factually accurate as teaching kids that a giant marshmallow took a **** and out popped the universe.
Just because lots of people believe it, doesn't mean it has any scientific credibility whatsoever, and also does not mean it should be given the illusion of being a legitimate answer to anything, not just the beginning of the universe.
I do think a case can be made for teaching children about the broader subject of religion and the varying beliefs, but to teach it in a science class or to teach it with the premise that it has some academic credibility would be disgraceful.
It is not a scientific theory because there is no legitimate evidence to support the hypothesis, this is the truth, and pupils should be taught the truth.

[ZexCui]

There is no proof creationism is a myth, just like there is no proof the big bang is 100% stone cold fact. The big bang is a theory, and creationism is a religious belief, so why not present both since both are the most common ideas to how the universe was created? Personally I think God did the big bang himself, which I guess would be a combo of the two.

the burden of proof is on the creationists to prove their myth, not the other way around.

as i said before, you can teach both, but the big bang belongs in science class, and creation myth belongs in mythology class.

when there is valid scientific evidence for creationism, then it can be taught in science class, after it goes through the scietific method.

do you understand now?

edit: oh yeah, creationism is a myth by default since there is no valid scientific evidence to support it. i don't have to prove it is a myth. that is just laughable that you said that. you can't prove that an invisible pink bunny living on the moon is a myth either. so i guess it isn't a myth? LOL.

[SurfOnSilver]

There is no proof creationism is a myth, just like there is no proof the big bang is 100% stone cold fact. The big bang is a theory, and creationism is a religious belief, so why not present both since both are the most common ideas to how the universe was created? Personally I think God did the big bang himself, which I guess would be a combo of the two.

holy crap, i didn't realise people were still using the "you cant disprove it therefore both options are equally likely" argument.

Do you believe in teaching pupils about Zeus? no? Well, there is no proof that Zeus is a myth either, so why not?
The difference between the big bang and creationism? The big bang has EVIDENCE to support the theory, creationism does not and is therefore as likely to be true as any story I can think of in my head. Do you understand the difference now? It's impossible to disprove anything, which is why we have something called evidence to help us work out what is likely to be true and what isn't.

[shadowwalker021]

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both? It is impossible to prove either theory wrong, and to say the big bang is 100% fact is wrong.

Because creationism doesn't have a lick of science in it. Besides, evolution doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the big bang.

[drew101]

Give me a fucking break.

I think the same exact thing for this evolution **** (I call it ****alution, LOL).

It makes monkeys out of men.

[Boffman]

I think the same exact thing for this evolution **** (I call it ****alution, LOL).

It makes monkeys out of men.

Please refute evolution for us. You must be pretty god damned smart. Considering Evolution has withstood harsh scrutiny from the worlds smartest men for over 150 years.

u=fail lol

[shadowwalker021]

I think the same exact thing for this evolution **** (I call it ****alution, LOL).

It makes monkeys out of men.

LOL!

You don't believe evolution because you think it somehow degrades human beings? Sorry pumpkin but you're made out of the exact same **** as the rest of the universe, there isn't a special human atom that separates you from anything else. Aw does that shatter your dreams? Guess you won't believe that either.

[TheLasher]

I think the same exact thing for this evolution **** (I call it ****alution, LOL).

It makes monkeys out of men.

x2 humans and primates have nothing in common except 99% dna.

[drew101]

Please refute evolution for us. You must be pretty god damned smart. Considering Evolution has withstood harsh scrutiny from the worlds smartest men for over 150 years.

u=fail lol

If the world's smartest men scrutinised evoltuion (and many did indeed), then it makes those evolutionists rather dunce, doesn't it? (LOL)

[Ben76]

There is no proof creationism is a myth, just like there is no proof the big bang is 100% stone cold fact. The big bang is a theory, and creationism is a religious belief, so why not present both since both are the most common ideas to how the universe was created? Personally I think God did the big bang himself, which I guess would be a combo of the two.

Right, the Big Bang is a scientific theory. you might want to look up what that means. Come and find me when creationism becomes a scientific theory.

[MantisShrimp]

Creationism and science are mutually exclusive when you are talking about the beginning of the universe. You have the creationist theory, which states that God created the universe. And you have the big bang science theory. Those are the two most widely held beliefs, so what is wrong with presenting both? It is impossible to prove either theory wrong, and to say the big bang is 100% fact is wrong.

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? You probably have, because it is required learning early in science classes. It's a method, which means it follows a procedure, with the intent of proving something within the accepted belief system called science. If something can't be proven through this method (whether through experimentation or mathematics) then it is not considered science. Creation can't be proven through the scientific method, therefore it's not science. I'm not saying it's untrue, or bad, or anything. But it isn't science, and doesn't belong in a science classroom. Please understand this basic concept.

[ONEWORDMAN]

Give me a fucking break.

when armaggeddon comes and people are running for their live as hailstones the size of trucks rain down on them mashing their brains to mush i wonder what will be going through their minds

[Ruhanv]

What is wrong with presenting evolution and creationism side by side, and letting the students decide which one they believe?

Then I would like to present astronomy and astrology side by side as well and let the students decide.

[Ruhanv]

when armaggeddon comes and people are running for their live as hailstones the size of trucks rain down on them mashing their brains to mush i wonder what will be going through their minds

I already saw Armaggeddon and that film sucked. The soundtrack was ok though.

[ONEWORDMAN]

I already saw Armaggeddon and that film sucked. The soundtrack was ok though.

good one

[Tip Top]

when armaggeddon comes and people are running for their live as hailstones the size of trucks rain down on them mashing their brains to mush i wonder what will be going through their minds

i'm gonna be thinking 'oh ****, a natural event that has occurred hundreds of times in the history of our planet is occuring at the best possible moment because i'm alive to see it this time. think of all those f*ckers who died before now and didn't get to see this!'

dying in the armageddon would be the coolest way to die, methinks.