NationStates Jolt Archive

The school board in Gransburg, Wis. has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism saying that teaching only evolution promoted only one theory. What say you? Would the teaching of creationism give more food for thought or merely let religion back into the schools?

Creationism can be taught in schools, but not as a science class. It should be included in a religion class that also covers other major world religions.

Creationism can be taught in schools, but not as a science class. It should be included in a religion class that also covers other major world religions.

Covers my opinion.....

Creationism can be taught in schools, but not as a science class. It should be included in a religion class that also covers other major world religions.
Aha, at this time creationism has nothing to do with science.

Here's the link to the article.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/192663-1358-010.html

Okay, this is a sensitive area, but here it goes...

I'm a Christian. I believe in both. I believe in evolution -as- creationism, so to speak. The Bible says God created our Earth in seven days. It also says something pertaining to, "a day in God's kingdom can be a thousand years in ours." It says he first created man - which, without a female counterpart, is technically asexual. Then we evolved into sexual beings. Enter Eve.

I don't believe we should teach creationism in our schools because all religions (or most, at least) have a creation story.

Okay, this is a sensitive area, but here it goes...

I'm a Christian. I believe in both. I believe in evolution -as- creationism, so to speak. The Bible says God created our Earth in seven days. It also says something pertaining to, "a day in God's kingdom can be a thousand years in ours." It says he first created man - which, without a female counterpart, is technically asexual. Then we evolved into sexual beings. Enter Eve.

I don't believe we should teach creationism in our schools because all religions (or most, at least) have a creation story.

We ought to have a religion class in schools that teaches about all religion. It's a subject that alot of Americans are woefully uneducated about.

How do you teach Creationism and keep a seperation between church & state?

Let it be a class, and let the students decide if they want to take it.(I wouldn't take it though.)

Creationism can be taught in schools, but not as a science class. It should be included in a religion class that also covers other major world religions.


***applause***

Grone:

First, creationism has been ruled to be a violation of church and state.

Second, creationism is about as much of a scientific theory as the earth being created by a 'god' playing marbles with subatomic molecules.

Well it’s my understanding that fundamentalist Christians want creationism taught in public schools. If schools are allowed to teach that there is nothing keeping them from teaching the Buddhist or Hindu creation story. Breaking down the separation of church and state means all religions, not just yours.

No it should not be taught. Whether there should be a religion class is a completely seperate issue, but creationism is completely un-scientific.

Grone:

First, creationism has been ruled to be a violation of church and state.

Second, creationism is about as much of a scientific theory as the earth being created by a 'god' playing marbles with subatomic molecules.

Creationism is only a violation of "church and state" if it is solely the Christian version that is taught and is not taught with a disclaimer. If it were included in an all-encompasing religion class, that would not necessarily be against said seperation.

Does everyone realize I posted this a couple days ago? Using the same article? Just checking...anyways, seeing as Creationism is about the least scientific thing I can think of, I don't think it should be taught in anything but a religion class.

I'm going to say yes, but here's why. Let's accept that science classes should teach about theories and how they come to be. For this the class should explain what is a theory, how they are formulated and tested, what constitutes evidence, etc. and then present the students with the evidence that has been found and the different systems created to explain it and which ones make more sense than others.

So, the big bang is just a theory, just like creationism. Which is more valid? Well, once students review the evidence and test their own conclusions I think they will pick one.

Of course, perhaps it would be best to first build a solid foundation of logic and epistemiology so the students can really understand.

Does everyone realize I posted this a couple days ago? Using the same article? Just checking...anyways, seeing as Creationism is about the least scientific thing I can think of, I don't think it should be taught in anything but a religion class.
Sorry, I missed your thread as I've been trying to watch for the subject to come up.

As there are scientists who claim to be able to prove the creation theory, if the class were taught with that perspective, not with a Christian, Muslim, Budhist slant, wouldn't that qualify it as a scientific study?

I'm going to say yes, but here's why. Let's accept that science classes should teach about theories and how they come to be. For this the class should explain what is a theory, how they are formulated and tested, what constitutes evidence, etc. and then present the students with the evidence that has been found and the different systems created to explain it and which ones make more sense than others.

So, the big bang is just a theory, just like creationism. Which is more valid? Well, once students review the evidence and test their own conclusions I think they will pick one.

Of course, perhaps it would be best to first build a solid foundation of logic and epistemiology so the students can really understand.

Perhaps creationism could be taught as a form of the chaos theory?

Sorry, I missed your thread as I've been trying to watch for the subject to come up.

As there are scientists who claim to be able to prove the creation theory, if the class were taught with that perspective, not with a Christian, Muslim, Budhist slant, wouldn't that qualify it as a scientific study?

No, because as a study it would require relying too much on "because the Bible says so" as evidence.

Let me append that. It would require relying too much on "because so-and-so book says so."

Okay, this is a sensitive area, but here it goes...

I'm a Christian. I believe in both. I believe in evolution -as- creationism, so to speak. The Bible says God created our Earth in seven days. It also says something pertaining to, "a day in God's kingdom can be a thousand years in ours." It says he first created man - which, without a female counterpart, is technically asexual. Then we evolved into sexual beings. Enter Eve.

I don't believe we should teach creationism in our schools because all religions (or most, at least) have a creation story.

Pretty much exactly what I believe, too. For those interested, the verse is 2 Peter 3:8, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. "

I have no problem with my fellow Christians believing in a literal, 7 day creation (after all, you can't indubitably prove evolution created life without a time machine because you can't observe the origin of life, even if you can indubitably prove evolution exists), but I have to question why it's such a big deal to some of them. It seems to me like what happened at the beginning of time is pretty much irrelevant. Or, to put it another way, who is more "Christian" - someone who believes in 7 day creation but thinks Jesus was just a human being (for example an Orthodox Jew), or someone who believes in evolution but also believes Jesus was the son of God?

I wouldn't have a problem with it being taught in public schools as long as other creation stories are taught as well. After all, wouldn't it be ridiculously hypocritical to demand the Judeo-Christian creation story being taught under the premise that it is a valid alternative theory to evolution, but then barring, say, the Shinto creation story? It's probably easier to stick to the secular story.

No, because as a study it would require relying too much on "because the Bible says so" as evidence.

Let me append that. It would require relying too much on "because so-and-so book says so."

There are scientists (not theologians) who say they can prove mathematically that creationism is possible. Others say they can tie evolution into the creation scenario. No religious study is used.

Ok one Evolution is not a theory, it can be witnessed under microscopes and through genetic manipulation...remember if creationism was true then you could not manipulate genes. Second the only reason it is still a theory is cause alot of christians believe that if the bible is wron about that its all wrong ...sorry it was a primitive minds attempt to understand the universe not fact. However Darwin himself said evolution had a purpose a distinct purpose in the creation of beings like man, so creation is ever so slightly right, in fact science now believes in a lot of cases if we find another earth like planet, it may have people almost like us on it as well, as just a natural course of evolution. Remember whatever planet exploded to seed earth with microbes, could have seeded more and look up the ancient babylonian creation myths, they talk about a planet blowing up 500 million years ago that seeded earth with life..freaky stuff.
Also i know which scientists you speak of...they are christian and try to say that earth was made 5000 years ago and god placed dinosaur bones in to the earth for us to find and the like *sigh* pretty damn dumb if you ask me lol.
I am "christian" in i follow the teachings of the wise man jesus christ, i sort fo believe what he said Ahem "i am the son of man, i am not the messiah and i am not the son of god" the whole son of god thing came from constantine, and he worshipped the undying sun, got confused and mixed christianity with that cult.

If Church and State should be separate, then why do they in court ask you to place your hand on the Bible?

Perhaps creationism could be taught as a form of the chaos theory?
How so? The fact that we can't make out the order behind chaos is not proof of a creator.

If Church and State should be separate, then why do they in court ask you to place your hand on the Bible?
Because they're hypocrites. Next question?

that is a relic of a bygone age actually, cause our societies used to be run by religion more so, still its just a truth thing, they bring out the koran for muslims and the like

Because they're hypocrites. Next question?

Lol, I love that.

*Wrinkles forehead* What do you mean? Everyone's a Christian.. except for the poor, doomed to hell heathens :D ;) ...

We ought to have a religion class in schools that teaches about all religion. It's a subject that alot of Americans are woefully uneducated about.

Yes, but there is a difference between being ignorant by choice, and being ignorant by not having access to the information. Although most Americans may seem ignorant of religion because they don't attend church, this is not because they don't know about religion. It is more because religion is not the Opiate for them.

Amazing though how some will assume that an Agnostic is ignorant. Or than an Athiest is ignorant.

Yes, but there is a difference between being ignorant by choice, and being ignorant by not having access to the information. Although most Americans may seem ignorant of religion because they don't attend church, this is not because they don't know about religion. It is more because religion is not the Opiate for them.

Amazing though how some will assume that an Agnostic is ignorant. Or than an Athiest is ignorant.

Most Americans are ignorant of religion because they do attend church, and that is their only exposure to any religion. Most Americans know little to nothing about religions other than their own.

It's disconcerting the way "theory of evolution" can be interpreted to mean "it's just a theory." Theory in terms of the scientific method is not the same as hypothesis. It is not a proposal. It is a system of explaining phenomenon that has been tried and tested. The word is almost interchangeable with model. Thus, whenever someone stresses that evolution is a theory and not fact explain that the solar system is a theory as well.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with questioning every bit of information you get. Analyze the theory of evolution. The way we understand it has changed over time. Darwinism is not identical to the modern accepted model of evolution. Don't be guilty of the same hypocritical arrogant certainty of belief that we criticize creationists for.
As for teaching creationism, sure teach it--including as many creation theories from as many cultures as is feasible. As long as you don't teach it as "God says this is the way it is so believe it." I mean, you can secularize it all you want, but isn't "Science says this is the way it is so believe it" sort of combining church--or at least a belief system--and state too? It's a hazy line.
And by the way, there's no reason creationism and evolution are incompatible so long as you don't take them at absolute face value and neglect how they can fit together. So God created the world--it's called the Big Bang.

Most Americans are ignorant of religion because they do attend church, and that is their only exposure to any religion. Most Americans know little to nothing about religions other than their own.

i'll do one better and say they barely know anything about their own religion, let alone others. nearly everyone who is religious follows the religion that their parents and/or significant others follow because it is the religion that their parents and/or significant others follow.

prove mathematically that creationism is possible

what the hell would that even mean?

I think that a course on any religious topic should be allowed to be taught in school if there are enough students interested in taking it. Of course such a course would not be required of those who do not wish to take it. Students should still be required to take the standard science courses though. If students want to study religion then why shouldnt they be able to? Even if you believe it to be false, learning some religion still provides you some perspective on art, literature, history.

Ok one Evolution is not a theory, it can be witnessed under microscopes and through genetic manipulation...remember if creationism was true then you could not manipulate genes.

Says who? If God created the universe then, by definition, he would also have created genes. Your argument is a non sequitar.

Second the only reason it is still a theory is cause alot of christians believe that if the bible is wron about that its all wrong ...sorry it was a primitive minds attempt to understand the universe not fact.

Primitive minds? With your grasp of grammar im going to assume your hardly a genius in waiting either. People 1,000 years in the future could be saying exactly the same thing about your beliefs, especially since you're so arrogantly cocksure about how right you are, even though you've never seen any proof to back up your version of how the universe started.

However Darwin himself said evolution had a purpose a distinct purpose in the creation of beings like man, so creation is ever so slightly right, in fact science now believes in a lot of cases if we find another earth like planet, it may have people almost like us on it as well, as just a natural course of evolution.

Well if Darwin says so.... :P

Its all speculation. Mathmatically, given the size of the universe, we could find just about any and every type of life possible somewhere.

Remember whatever planet exploded to seed earth with microbes, could have seeded more and look up the ancient babylonian creation myths, they talk about a planet blowing up 500 million years ago that seeded earth with life..freaky stuff.

The 'seed' theory is just another unproven theory floating around at the moment. Interesting you seem prepared to keep an open mind about every other possible theory, apart from creationism, without any proof whatsoever.

Also i know which scientists you speak of...they are christian and try to say that earth was made 5000 years ago and god placed dinosaur bones in to the earth for us to find and the like *sigh* pretty damn dumb if you ask me lol.

Dont mke things up, you dont have a clue what scientists he's talking about. There are many respected and intelligent scientists who believe in creatonism.

I am "christian" in i follow the teachings of the wise man jesus christ, i sort fo believe what he said Ahem "i am the son of man, i am not the messiah and i am not the son of god" the whole son of god thing came from constantine, and he worshipped the undying sun, got confused and mixed christianity with that cult.

Well its been a while since i read the bible, but im pretty sure your pulling this stuff out your arse now.

I see nothing wrong with teaching the theory of evolution, and saying, "There are other theories on how the world came into existence as well. Some people believe....." etc.

How do you teach Creationism and keep a seperation between church & state?

All that the separation between church and states means is that the schools cannot advocate any particular religion as being superior to others.

You can quite easily teach Creationism in school, as long as you provide a fair and balanced look both at it and opposing theories.

In global studies, the differences and similarities between the world's major religions are taught in the context of the cultures being studied -- what is the big deal about saying, "Some people believe X, while others believe Y,"?

I see nothing wrong with teaching the theory of evolution, and saying, "There are other theories on how the world came into existence as well. Some people believe....." etc.

the thing wrong with that is that there aren't any other scientific theories out there. in so far as the genesis creation myth could be treated as one it has been completely and utterly demolished as having any relationship to reality at all. and i'd be all in favor of madating that schools say that.

Ok one Evolution is not a theory, it can be witnessed under microscopes and through genetic manipulation...remember if creationism was true then you could not manipulate genes. Second the only reason it is still a theory is cause alot of christians believe that if the bible is wron about that its all wrong ...sorry it was a primitive minds attempt to understand the universe not fact. However Darwin himself said evolution had a purpose a distinct purpose in the creation of beings like man, so creation is ever so slightly right, in fact science now believes in a lot of cases if we find another earth like planet, it may have people almost like us on it as well, as just a natural course of evolution. Remember whatever planet exploded to seed earth with microbes, could have seeded more and look up the ancient babylonian creation myths, they talk about a planet blowing up 500 million years ago that seeded earth with life..freaky stuff.
Also i know which scientists you speak of...they are christian and try to say that earth was made 5000 years ago and god placed dinosaur bones in to the earth for us to find and the like *sigh* pretty damn dumb if you ask me lol.
I am "christian" in i follow the teachings of the wise man jesus christ, i sort fo believe what he said Ahem "i am the son of man, i am not the messiah and i am not the son of god" the whole son of god thing came from constantine, and he worshipped the undying sun, got confused and mixed christianity with that cult.


1. True, evolution is not a theory, but evolution creating life is a theory. Two different concepts. I believe in evolution, but you simply can't prove that any one thing caused any given other thing that happened in the past when there were inherently no humans around to observe!

2. Where do you find "I am not the Messiah" in the Bible? (That was "Life of Brian") "Son of Man" is a Messianic title; see Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power; all peoples, nations, and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is and everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Yep. Sounds like just your average Joe to me.

3. "The whole son of god thing came with Constantine"? Constantine was born in 272. According to some very quick research, there are at least 7 New Testament manuscripts dating from before he was born, and the almost complete Vaticanus dates to about 300, 13 years before his conversion. So claiming all the references to Jesus as "Christ" (the Greek translation of Messiah) were put there by or after Constantine is absurd. Plus, how could Constantine have confused Latin sol, "sun," with filius, "son"? Puns don't translate.

I'm going to say yes, but here's why. Let's accept that science classes should teach about theories and how they come to be. For this the class should explain what is a theory, how they are formulated and tested, what constitutes evidence, etc. and then present the students with the evidence that has been found and the different systems created to explain it and which ones make more sense than others.

So, the big bang is just a theory, just like creationism. Which is more valid? Well, once students review the evidence and test their own conclusions I think they will pick one.

Of course, perhaps it would be best to first build a solid foundation of logic and epistemiology so the students can really understand.

CREATIONALISM IS NOT A THEORY!

I cannot believe how much ignorance exists in the American public about what constitutes a scientific "theory." Please understand that when something is called a theory, it has been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community as complete and utter fact, and must be backed by thousands of pieces of evidence. Theory in the scientific world is second only to law; and if you look around, there are startling few laws in the physical world.

Gravity is a theory. Should we tell students they might now have weight, and float into space? Let them decide for themselves!

Relativity is a theory. Why? Because not every aspect of relativity has been demonstrated. We have proven enough of the implications to demonstrate that relativity is indeed correct in every testable circumstance, but still do not understand everything about it. The same is true of evolution.

Evolution is a fact, embraced by at least 95% of all scientists involved in any appropiate field. Biologists have taken 10,000 generations of bacteria and watched as the genotype of the population changes in response to alterations in the environemnt. Thousands of generations of fruit flies have demonstrated the same thing. Mitrochondrial DNA demonstrates that all cheetahs have descended from three females; blatant evidence that cheetahs were speciated from some other animal and started with only a handful of organisms.

We have proven that animals evolve. Unfortunately, we do not yet know all of why and especially how. We do not know how non-life gave rise to life. Because of those holes in our knowledge, some people have seen fit to declare that all else is false, or doubtable.

There is no evidence for creationalism, not one jot. Only a lack of absolute proof on the other side.

School is the place to teach students fact, not the contents of a book written thousands of years ago that, as it happens, a minority of the population of Earth finds true. Let the church teach what the church believes; keep it out of publicly financed institutes of learning.

Ha! Do you think in the Bible Belt and Midwest they'd let public schools teach religion classes that included information about major religions in addition to Christianity?? Honestly?

I'm from South Dakota and my high school was the only one in the state that offered Philosophy as a course because it questioned the existence of God and that was SOOOOO risque.

If you believe in God, great. That shouldn't mean that you SHOULD NOT learn about current scientific theories in science class. I was raised a Christian. Learning this stuff is part of critical thinking and questioning your own beliefs. If your beliefs can't withstand some challenges, then you're faith isn't that stong to start.

Christianity is not a science. It doesn't belong in science texts or classes.

CREATIONALISM IS NOT A THEORY!

I cannot believe how much ignorance exists in the American public about what constitutes a scientific "theory." Please understand that when something is called a theory, it has been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community as complete and utter fact, and must be backed by thousands of pieces of evidence. Theory in the scientific world is second only to law; and if you look around, there are startling few laws in the physical world.

that's not exactly right on either counts. a theory cannot be a fact because they deal in unobservable explanations for facts. a good theory is a testable explanation for the facts that has withstood a large number of serious tests and made novel predictions (and a few more criteria depending on who you talk to). a law is description (usually mathematical) of a relationship between facts that holds under particular conditions, but without an actual explanation for that relationship.

and some parts of creationism do make predictions and can be tested, so it could count as a hypothesis. a completely refuted hypothesis that is not worthy of going over except as an excellent example of science in action, but a hypothesis none the less. which means that it could have been a theory, in principle at least. except for the little problem of being false.

I'll annouce that i am a Atheist. God worship only leads to violance and more hardships. But i would not be opposed if i had to take a class about Religions. Creationism should be taught in schools in a religions class that inculded the major religions: Chrsitanity, Islam, Jeudasim and others like Hindusim, Pagan, Wiccan, Toaism, and the not religion Atheism. Evoultion is science, it does not inculde the Orgin of Life and does not threaten Religons in any way. SO the bible is wrong, yeah i really feel the kingdom of Chrsitanity fallen on top of Islam. People get so out of hand with this.

I see nothing wrong with teaching the theory of evolution, and saying, "There are other theories on how the world came into existence as well. Some people believe....." etc.

Because that's not how science works - especially at the high school level.

Darwinian Evolution - for want of a better term - is the current paradigm in the life-sciences. It is the "meta" theory, if you will, of where life on earth came from and where it is going (and I don't want to get into the contentious area of abiogenesis here so when I say came from don't nit-pick about "first life," you know what I mean)

Are there competing contradictory theories under the umbrella of evolution that focus on specifics. Yes there are, Dawkins and Gould used to go at it quite a bit, and they both could legtimately be discussed in a science class. But presenting those is not the same as presenting the counter paradigm of creationism.

You see everything that touches on this aspect of life sciences is defined by darwinian evolution, chuck out evolution and you chuck the way Natural Historian's view the world. Also you throw out much in the life sciences that do not explicitly deal with evolution but are viewed through it's lense. Its not a matter of "competing theories" but of a diametrically opposed weltanshaung, and one which has absolutely no support in the scientific community to boot.

Teaching creationism in a biology class, is like teaching Velikovsky in a class about the history of the solar system. Not only is it plain wrong and unsupported, it makes such a mockery of the rest of the material you might as well not bother at all.

Therefore there is no need to talk about religion. The reason why creationsim should not be taught (outside the lack of real scientist that condone it as a model), is that it cannot be reconciled in meaningful way with the rest of the field, and in any event, it's just not how science is done.

The Deacon has spoken.

to me, it seems irresponsible to teach creationism as a doctrine, downright stupid to teach it as a theory, and a waste of tax dollars to teach it as anything else in a public school. If you really want your kids to believe that some being in the clouds built everything on earth, teach them yourself.

Creationism rocks. The Columbine gunmen were darwinists.

The school board in Gransburg, Wis. has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism saying that teaching only evolution promoted only one theory. What say you? Would the teaching of creationism give more food for thought or merely let religion back into the schools?

I expect them to then teach multiple forms of creationism, and not just the judeo-christian one.

Creationism rocks. The Columbine gunmen were darwinists.

you know what's sad? i really can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

note to all - it is impossible to parody creationists, as no matter what you say there will always be at least one of them holding your parody as their actual position.

There are scientists (not theologians) who say they can prove mathematically that creationism is possible. Others say they can tie evolution into the creation scenario. No religious study is used.

Mathmatically prove the existence of God?

Ahhh ok. Do post a link.....

If Church and State should be separate, then why do they in court ask you to place your hand on the Bible?

Actually, it's now optional. It depends on the state; I think.

you know what's sad? i really can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

note to all - it is impossible to parody creationists, as no matter what you say there will always be at least one of them holding your parody as their actual position.

For example: These guys (http://objective.jesussave.us/). It's probably a parody, but it's hard to tell, because you can find almost the same stuff on real creationist websites.

you know what's sad? i really can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

note to all - it is impossible to parody creationists, as no matter what you say there will always be at least one of them holding your parody as their actual position.

What if there was an atheist creationist. Wouldn't that have to be a parody?

I expect them to then teach multiple forms of creationism, and not just the judeo-christian one.
Agreed. And I think that belongs in religion or philosophy, not science.

CREATIONALISM IS NOT A THEORY!

I know, so what's wrong with teaching kids why it's not a theory and how science really works? It would make the stupid parents shut up and really teach kids something for a change.

We ought to have a religion class in schools that teaches about all religion. It's a subject that alot of Americans are woefully uneducated about.

one of many subjects

For example: These guys (http://objective.jesussave.us/). It's probably a parody, but it's hard to tell, because you can find almost the same stuff on real creationist websites.

Actually, it's not a parody. They are, in fact, trying to shut down ( http://objective.jesussave.us/shutdown.html )the Landover Baptist Church
( http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ ) because it is a parody.

Both sites are hilarious.

Creationism can be taught in schools, but not as a science class. It should be included in a religion class that also covers other major world religions.

I think thats an excellent idea! I wish I knew more about other religions. It would be an excellent course to add to school curiculum.

I think thats an excellent idea! I wish I knew more about other religions. It would be an excellent course to add to school curiculum.
Don't they have courses like that? I know in Australia, well in New South Wales anyway, you can take Studies of Religion, which teaches students about various faiths.
Also at my school we'd have religious services, and all the students who were not affiliated to a religion, or just didn't feel like it could attend seminars on various religions. I found it very interesting.

And those people who want to ban Landover Baptist freak me out! :p

Well, from what I remember from High school biology, in Grade Eleven and Twelve Biology we went over evolution only briefly, maybe part of the class for two days tops. Throw in intelligent design and creationism and maybe a couple other theories in briefly, maybe an extra half hour total. People get offended when Evolution is taught in schools, others get offended when Creation is taught in schools. Why not teach both? It's not like they recieve all that much attention until University anyways.

Too much intolerance from both sides!

You should all Fluffle more often! :fluffle:

:)

Don't they have courses like that? I know in Australia, well in New South Wales anyway, you can take Studies of Religion, which teaches students about various faiths.
Also at my school we'd have religious services, and all the students who were not affiliated to a religion, or just didn't feel like it could attend seminars on various religions. I found it very interesting.

And those people who want to ban Landover Baptist freak me out! :p

I dont think they have a Religion class. Well they didnt when I was in school- I graduated in 1992 though. I'm in America too so that explains a lot. If we had had that in highschool- I think we would have all benefitted intellectually and socially from it. And I can hear my government officials saying "we cant have religion in schools!" But it wouldnt be promoting one religion over the other. It would be the same as teaching the different cultures we learned in Social Studies. And would be very interesting.

So if all the science is so wonderful can somebody explain where it all came from. Before the big bang (if that theory is the correct one of so many) when did the matter or energy come from did it always exist? Always now there's an interesting concept, when did time start? What is time? Does it always have to be linear? Is it linear or do we just percive it that way? Does the universe end? Are there other universes beyond that? If the universe is all there is and it is expanding when is it expanding into? Oh yes science has all the answers.
Not saying that any religion does either but just pointing out religions provide more answers than science as any good scintist knows answering one question raises any number of other questions.
So a little less 'faith' in science please, a good sciencentist should be sceptical about science as well as religion.

Not saying that any religion does either but just pointing out religions provide more answers than science as any good scintist knows answering one question raises any number of other questions.
So a little less 'faith' in science please, a good sciencentist should be sceptical about science as well as religion.
Yeah, sure, if you want to make up a bunch of lies and call that answers. Science doesn't require faith and is honest enough to admit it doesn't have all the answers, but at least it's willing to ask the questions and try to find an answer.

Creationism rocks. The Columbine gunmen were darwinists.


Well I'm convinced! 10 years of study thrown out of the window. If two convicts believe in it, it must be false.

I would have trouble having a belief in all-powerful deity who puts an apendix into humans. The only thing it does is get infected and kill you. It has no other purpose. Slight design-flaw don't ya think?

Although Noahs ark (lots creationist love the big flood theroys) makes sense in an odd kind of way.

<After the flood>
First stop: Australia
"Right everything dangerous OFF!! And everything with a pouch, OFF! Pouch birth weirdos, gives me the willies!"

.....
Fifth stop: Africa
"Hmmm.. I think spots on the cats and big ears on the elephants for this content, they go well together. We'll keep the stripes and small ears for later on"

....
Twenty Ninth stop:Ireland
"Sh*t! Run out of snakes!"

All this while being watched by those Evil ducks.

Always now there's an interesting concept, when did time start?

At the Big Bang, I believe is the current theory.

What is time?

A dimension, I believe.

Does the universe end?

Who can say? It could. Or it could just go on and on until its a bare husk (damn you, Second Law of Thermodynamics!)

Are there other universes beyond that?

Possibly.

For what it's worth, here in Scotland we get 4 years of Religious Education (it's compulsory) at the start of Secondary School, and can choose to continue to study it after that. I didn't, mind you. :-)

Does the universe end?

Duh. (http://www.recrea.f9.co.uk/hhgttg/restaurant.jpg)

Duh. (http://www.recrea.f9.co.uk/hhgttg/restaurant.jpg)
LOL

Well, from what I remember from High school biology, in Grade Eleven and Twelve Biology we went over evolution only briefly, maybe part of the class for two days tops. Throw in intelligent design and creationism and maybe a couple other theories in briefly, maybe an extra half hour total. People get offended when Evolution is taught in schools, others get offended when Creation is taught in schools. Why not teach both? It's not like they recieve all that much attention until University anyways.

Too much intolerance from both sides!

You should all Fluffle more often! :fluffle:

:)

This is pretty much what I was suggesting -- or at the least, after teaching evolutionary theory, simply acknowledging that not everyone believes solely in science, and some believe, as some here have said, an invisible being in the sky is responsible. ;)

The school board in Gransburg, Wis. has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism saying that teaching only evolution promoted only one theory. What say you? Would the teaching of creationism give more food for thought or merely let religion back into the schools?

If Creationism were actually a scientific theory, then I would pick the first option. However, Creationism is not science, it does not follow the scientific method, and thus it should not be in a science curriculum. Period.

This is pretty much what I was suggesting -- or at the least, after teaching evolutionary theory, simply acknowledging that not everyone believes solely in science, and some believe, as some here have said, an invisible being in the sky is responsible. ;)

Every school that I know of does this - and my science classes all did. You teach the science and then state "Some people don't believe this. They think God did it all a different way." The end. Anything more than that is teaching religion in a science class, where it doesn't belong.

How do you teach Creationism and keep a seperation between church & state?

Same way you do it when swaerin on a bible in court, putting "in God we trust on currency" and celebrating Cristian holidays as National Ones. Separartion of Church and State is really intended to keep government from declaring a Nation Religion. As for creationism in the science class, it is not a theory. There is no supporting evidence (except Biblical but if you are not Christian you don't believe the Bible anyway so that is out). You have to be able to test a scientific theory in some way. How do you test a faith based idea. You can't. That's why it is called "faith" which is belief in the absence of proof. Science is based on proof; faith on belief. However, i also tend to see no reason why "evolution" cannot be the method God used to bring about "creation"

You have to be able to test a scientific theory in some way. How do you test a faith based idea. You can't. That's why it is called "faith" which is belief in the absence of proof. Science is based on proof; faith on belief. However, i also tend to see no reason why "evolution" cannot be the method God used to bring about "creation"

Or it could be a method used by The Great Big Crocodile, Coca Cola or a lightbulb - however I do think the two latter alternatives are much more possible since they exist.

Don't get mad about his post, that's not my intention. I just find it hard to understand why some people still can belive in the bible, and to me refering to the bible or Jesus just doesn't make any sense. Who can you belive in something without any kind of proof?

America is now again a frontier, this time against fundamentalists who would roll back civilised society a century to some fundie intolerant sectarians dream of a society ruled by fear and intolerance. One of the reasons America defeated the USSR was because the democratic, tolerant society it was then, inspired the people of Eastern Europe to abandon Soviet Communism. Would many countries, especially Moslem ones, want to overthrow their Islamic governments (I'm thinking Iran here of course) to emulate GWB's America?

There's a great deal America has and can continue to offer people round the world, but once crap like creationism takes root in schools, not only will the US lose the faith of countries that really need liberating, but also it's losing the faith of democracies that together helped to bring about democratic change.

Creationism in any case is not a science, it has no scientific grounding, and if you include that in a science class, we should also teach flat earthism. Hey, that has no scientific grounds either, but it has very committed people of 'faith' in support of it.

Creationism is only a violation of "church and state" if it is solely the Christian version that is taught and is not taught with a disclaimer. If it were included in an all-encompasing religion class, that would not necessarily be against said seperation.
Which is what is meant by "creationism".


Are we going to have to give every crackpot creation theory time in high school bio? As is they barely have enough time to move through everything that they have to get through anyway, and they still leave out quite a bit of population ecology.

Quote from a non NS member browsing the forums with me:
_________________________________________________________________
First of all, "seperation of church and state" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Creationism is as legitimate of a theory as evolution, if not more. As far as I have researched, I have found no real evidence to support the evolution theory, only creation. As for those who believe in "theological evolution," why try to modify what is already perfect? The Bible says "six days," that means "six days." If you think those stood for huge periods of time, please explain to me how the plants could have survived if they were created the "day" before the sun. Also, birds were created before land animals were. That goes completely against the evolution theory. If you would like more information, I recommend searching for information on/by Dr. Hovind, a very good Creation Science Evangelist. I'm not saying that science is bad. In fact, I like science. The problem is that there is little true science in the evolution theory, while creation can be and is scientifically supported, and does not go against any scientific theories or laws.

EDIT: His e-mail address is brandon.marini@kiski.org if you wish to contact him.

Quote from a non NS member browsing the forums with me:
_________________________________________________________________
First of all, "seperation of church and state" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Creationism is as legitimate of a theory as evolution, if not more. As far as I have researched, I have found no real evidence to support the evolution theory, only creation. As for those who believe in "theological evolution," why try to modify what is already perfect? The Bible says "six days," that means "six days." If you think those stood for huge periods of time, please explain to me how the plants could have survived if they were created the "day" before the sun. Also, birds were created before land animals were. That goes completely against the evolution theory. If you would like more information, I recommend searching for information on/by Dr. Hovind, a very good Creation Science Evangelist. I'm not saying that science is bad. In fact, I like science. The problem is that there is little true science in the evolution theory, while creation can be and is scientifically supported, and does not go against any scientific theories or laws.

Woah. Let's back it up a notch. Because I don't have much time, I suggest that your friend A, take a bio class, and B, read talkorigins.org. They help a lot, and much of what your friend said is well, bullshit.

Second, seperation of church and state is mentioned in the constitution, just in a manner that you have to read to get. The establishment and free exercise clauses, in effect, establish a base separation between church and state. I can go into more detail when I get back, if you wish.

Well, from what I remember from High school biology, in Grade Eleven and Twelve Biology we went over evolution only briefly, maybe part of the class for two days tops. Throw in intelligent design and creationism and maybe a couple other theories in briefly, maybe an extra half hour total. People get offended when Evolution is taught in schools, others get offended when Creation is taught in schools. Why not teach both? It's not like they recieve all that much attention until University anyways.

Evolution is based on science. Creation and intelligent design are not. Thus, Creation and intelligent design do not belong in a science class.

If you would like more information, I recommend searching for information on/by Dr. Hovind, a very good Creation Science Evangelist.
Any argument you had went out the window when you mentioned Hovind. He's a liar and a charaltan. He has no knowledge of science. He is not a doctor. He got his "degree" from a degree mill that operates out of a split level. He's a convicted felon, and is being prosecuted for two more felonies. He's an admitted child abuser. (And proud of it.) You actually trust that lying piece of shit?

As for the rest of your arguments:

Anyone who has a knowledge of Hebrew writing techniques would know that Genesis is intented as a just-so story. Besides, the Bible is crap.

I can go into more detail when I get back, if you wish.Please do.

Originally Posted by Zooke
prove mathematically that creationism is possible

what the hell would that even mean?

2+2=5?

Idea!

Let's form a Darwinist Christian Coalition. No really, it's feasible. The "Intelligent Designers" (who sound like people who come to show you how to lay out your furniture, imo) tried to give a scientific rationale to creationism, so why can't science grab some of their cake?

Lets say : God (who science defines as the Big Bang, even scientists use Big Initials for it) created the world at some time in the past (not 6000 years you silly sod, be reasonable). Over a period of time it evolved (hats off to Darwin) species evolved, up to now. Extreme fast forward but there you go.

Voila! A synthesis of goddism and evolution before you can say 'who's turn is it to buy the beers?'

NOTE : This does not justify the continued existence of a creator, in this scenario he could just have easily be a super-sub atomic particle that farted at the big bang moment as the rule of all and your, like, big Daddy.

Disgust.

First of all, "seperation of church and state" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

I'm sorry that your friend can't figure out the meaning of a phrase, rather than just looking for the exact words.

Creationism is as legitimate of a theory as evolution, if not more. As far as I have researched, I have found no real evidence to support the evolution theory, only creation.

I'm sorry that your friend knows nothing about science. Creationism is not a scientific theory at all - it is a theological construct. Creationists claim to have found "evidence" but they did not find said evidence using the scientific method, therefore it is not science.

The scientific method takes data and figures out a theory based on that data. Creationism takes something that they view as fact, and tries to find evidence to support it. This could be used to find evidence for *anything*.

Here is an analogy.

Suppose a chick is walking along behind a dog, following it everywhere it goes.

Now, if you knew nothing about dogs and chicks, you might believe that the chick was the offspring of the dog.

A scientist would perform experiments for this. They would breed dogs and find that a chick was never birthed. They would find chicken eggs and see that they usually came from chickens. Finally, they would try and figure out why, if the chick was not the dog's offspring, it would follow the dog around. They would plan experiments around the hatching of the egg and find that a chick imprints on whatever it first sees, thus giving the impression that whatever it imprinted on is its "parent.

A Creationist would say "Look!! The chick is following the dog!! This supports my belief that the chick is the offspring of the dog! I am correct!"

While i do sort of believe in creation, i feel it should not be taught in schools because it is NOT a science, it is merely a belief. there is no scientific evidence backing it up.

And Texas is stupid for putting warning labels on textbooks.

Quote from a non NS member browsing the forums with me:
_________________________________________________________________
As far as I have researched, I have found no real evidence to support the evolution theory, only creation.

then your friend either has their eyes tightly shut and their ears covered while yelling "lalala i can't hear you lalala" or they haven't actually looked.

Also, birds were created before land animals were. That goes completely against the evolution theory.

"it's symbolic of his struggle against reality."

ask your friend to explain why when we look at the order of fossils in the various strata we only find bird fossils in the higher strata while we find all sorts of land animals in the lower ones as well as the higher ones - with the ones in the lower strata looking more and more different from currently existing animals the farther down we look. or why the things that appear to be most similar to birds (but not birds) in the lower strata are quite plainly two legged land dinosaurs with feathers, and as we look in progressively higher strata we find things that look less and less like dinosaurs with feathers and more like modern birds?

While i do sort of believe in creation, i feel it should not be taught in schools because it is NOT a science, it is merely a belief. there is no scientific evidence backing it up.

And Texas is stupid for putting warning labels on textbooks.Well, here is MY (not my friends) MY opinion. Pretty much what Aqualiss said, however, I believe that it should be taught; Just not as a science because as said before, it has no science backing it up in my opinion. Religion is i na sence the crutch of humanity. Since early ages, the unexplained was coincidered a work of God. Now that we [basically] understand things like the physics of how the earth orbits the sun, and the moon orbits the earth ans so on...there is no longer a 'Sun god' which hurls the sun from the horizon, or a 'Moon god' which illuminates the moon during the night. I do however believe and trust in Stephen Hawkings. he has similar opinions to myself.

Any argument you had went out the window when you mentioned Hovind. He's a liar and a charaltan. He has no knowledge of science. He is not a doctor. He got his "degree" from a degree mill that operates out of a split level. He's a convicted felon, and is being prosecuted for two more felonies. He's an admitted child abuser. (And proud of it.) You actually trust that lying piece of shit?

As for the rest of your arguments:

Anyone who has a knowledge of Hebrew writing techniques would know that Genesis is intented as a just-so story. Besides, the Bible is crap.

Awww you beat me to it for a rant.

He has also been challenged on his $250K challenge and fails to honor it.

He is routinely proven wrong on several of his comments and he repeats them.

He is a conman and will eventually be driven out of business.

Howdy,

First, let me get my education hat on. I honestly think that evolution should not be treated as the be all, end all of origin of life studies. The way the "law", written by judges who has about as much experience with upper level biology as a trout has driving a semi in a desert, more or less currently has the whole evolution/creationism situation is:

1) Teach evolution as if it is the only answer to the question (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).
2) Do not teach that the theory has any flaws associated with it and to ignore people's scientific objections to the theory (Edwards v Aguillard).
3) Ridicule people's religious objections as much as humanly possible (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).

The idea behind refusing to talk about any problems with evolution as origin of life is so that people will accept the theory as truth until they are old enough to critically evaluate the theory. They can thereupon make the "right" decision, meaning the decision that the education people want them to make. The failure (or maybe the ulterior goal) of their plan is that they have judicially removed the critical evaluation part from high school, and, unless you plan to major in a biological field (Biology, Biochemistry, pre-med et cetera), will probably never take another Biology course again. So, the vast majority of people out there have blindly accepted that evolution is the answer without ever really looking at the evidence for or against it. This is a major problem.

Putting on the Biology major's hat, yes, there is scientific proof against evolution. I do not have the time or the patience to list them all out, but here is a short list:
1) The Laws of Probability states that the proper assemblage of proteins and nucleic acids is too small to happen on a large enough scale to form life randomly.
2) Some metabolic functions, such as the blood clotting mechanism, cannot have formed by random mutations in single genes without almost immediately killing the organism.
3) The organism's mutation resistance and DNA repair systems are too good to produce enough genetic mutations to form a new species.

Darwin's Black Box by Behe would be a good place for people interested in reading a little on the subject to start.

The fact that I, who will get by Bachelors of Science in Biology this Spring, have yet to read in a textbook how a beneficial mutation has led to speciation using Biochemistry to identify the gene being mutated, the location of the mutation, how the mutation overcomes the repair system wiping it out and how the mutated gene functions in it's immediate environment, is also discouraging. Neither does the fact that creation science can account for all the evidence evolution has about as well as Crick (one of the guys who figured out the structure of DNA and an avid evolutionist) can.

Juggling both hats and throwing in some logic to boot, the evolutionists should have nothing to fear about presenting a scientifically valid intelligent design theory (like the one proposed by Behe in his book) in a high school environment if they are as right as they believe. Having to actually present arguments against that theory, which do not fall apart under the slightest scrutiny by a reasonably educated person, would only strengthen their position. And so would having to actually present biochemical evidence in action like I wish my college textbooks could. Of course, if they are wrong, it would make the evolution proponents look foolish sooner. I think that's a risk they should take.

Howdy,

First, let me get my education hat on. I honestly think that evolution should not be treated as the be all, end all of origin of life studies. The way the "law", written by judges who has about as much experience with upper level biology as a trout has driving a semi in a desert, more or less currently has the whole evolution/creationism situation is:

1) Teach evolution as if it is the only answer to the question (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).
2) Do not teach that the theory has any flaws associated with it and to ignore people's scientific objections to the theory (Edwards v Aguillard).
3) Ridicule people's religious objections as much as humanly possible (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).

The idea behind refusing to talk about any problems with evolution as origin of life is so that people will accept the theory as truth until they are old enough to critically evaluate the theory. They can thereupon make the "right" decision, meaning the decision that the education people want them to make. The failure (or maybe the ulterior goal) of their plan is that they have judicially removed the critical evaluation part from high school, and, unless you plan to major in a biological field (Biology, Biochemistry, pre-med et cetera), will probably never take another Biology course again. So, the vast majority of people out there have blindly accepted that evolution is the answer without ever really looking at the evidence for or against it. This is a major problem.

Putting on the Biology major's hat, yes, there is scientific proof against evolution. I do not have the time or the patience to list them all out, but here is a short list:
1) The Laws of Probability states that the proper assemblage of proteins and nucleic acids is too small to happen on a large enough scale to form life randomly.
2) Some metabolic functions, such as the blood clotting mechanism, cannot have formed by random mutations in single genes without almost immediately killing the organism.
3) The organism's mutation resistance and DNA repair systems are too good to produce enough genetic mutations to form a new species.

Darwin's Black Box by Behe would be a good place for people interested in reading a little on the subject to start.

The fact that I, who will get by Bachelors of Science in Biology this Spring, have yet to read in a textbook how a beneficial mutation has led to speciation using Biochemistry to identify the gene being mutated, the location of the mutation, how the mutation overcomes the repair system wiping it out and how the mutated gene functions in it's immediate environment, is also discouraging. Neither does the fact that creation science can account for all the evidence evolution has about as well as Crick (one of the guys who figured out the structure of DNA and an avid evolutionist) can.

Juggling both hats and throwing in some logic to boot, the evolutionists should have nothing to fear about presenting a scientifically valid intelligent design theory (like the one proposed by Behe in his book) in a high school environment if they are as right as they believe. Having to actually present arguments against that theory, which do not fall apart under the slightest scrutiny by a reasonably educated person, would only strengthen their position. And so would having to actually present biochemical evidence in action like I wish my college textbooks could. Of course, if they are wrong, it would make the evolution proponents look foolish sooner. I think that's a risk they should take.

1.) First off, because it has happened, we know that it isn't that unlikely. For all we know, we are missing something (highly likely) and that any 'small probability" is cut down by the sheer number of times that such a possibility can occur. Say nothing of the fact that biology really isn't chance... (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html)
2.) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html
3.) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html

Let me get on the other one for you.

First of all, "seperation of church and state" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Creationism is as legitimate of a theory as evolution, if not more. As far as I have researched, I have found no real evidence to support the evolution theory, only creation. As for those who believe in "theological evolution," why try to modify what is already perfect? The Bible says "six days," that means "six days." If you think those stood for huge periods of time, please explain to me how the plants could have survived if they were created the "day" before the sun. Also, birds were created before land animals were. That goes completely against the evolution theory. If you would like more information, I recommend searching for information on/by Dr. Hovind, a very good Creation Science Evangelist. I'm not saying that science is bad. In fact, I like science. The problem is that there is little true science in the evolution theory, while creation can be and is scientifically supported, and does not go against any scientific theories or laws.

First, anyone who says that the earth was created in six days will be laughed at. This is nonsense, pure and simple, and there is nothing worse then attempting to dispute fact. Creationism gives no testable hypothesis, so it fails the first and most important step to being a legitimate theory (say nothing that Occam's razor tears it to shreds). Second, your friend seems to be relying on the bible as the end all be all truth which isn't true (the bible can not be inerrant, cheifly because men wrote it. Men are fallible, the Lord may not be, but the Lord did not write and translate the book) and can not be used as a legitimate tool for dismissing Evolution out of hand. We simply have no way of proving if the Bible is true or not, at least in the older books such as Genesis, and using the comment "This isn't true because the Bible says so" isn't a legitimate response to science. As for the lack of evidence, because I don't feel like typing, you can go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, but I'd highly suggest taking a good biology course or asking a biologist for more information, if you aren't as well versed in biology as you seem to be.

Oh, and evidence for creationism would be welcomed. You can e-mail me at Lakhim@comcast.net if you can't forward them through your friend.

Well, as an Atheist I would like to say that NOT teaching the Creationist theory really annoyed me. I always wanted to discuss religion in my classes, but we weren’t allowed to do such. In my opinion it is a travesty that the creationist theory cannot be taught because we have to worry about those teachers who would teach it as fact instead of JUST a THEORY.

Solution: Don’t allow religious teachers, who cannot swear to teach it as a theory, teach the science classes. OR you could have the teachers sign a contract saying they wont push religion on the students.

I see red when people want to teach creationism in a science class. My blood boils. . . Why? Not because there is something wrong with creationsim, but because it cannot be taught as science. Science is the attempt to explain the world as we perceive it through measuring tangiable things. NOTHING is to be taken on faith. (Scientist who do, or are making assumptions, usually wind up very red in the face trying to take thier foot out of thier mouth.)
Creationism is a myth. It maybe true but it does not permit itself to be proved so. Scientific thinking cannot be applied to it- hence- its not science. Teach it in mythology or history where it more properly fits.

the evolutionists should have nothing to fear about presenting a scientifically valid intelligent design theory (like the one proposed by Behe in his book) in a high school environment if they are as right as they believe. Having to actually present arguments against that theory, which do not fall apart under the slightest scrutiny by a reasonably educated person, would only strengthen their position.

behe's argument boils down entirely to "looky this thing! i don't know how it got that way. and nobody else does either. must be the christian god....i mean a completely scientificly arrived at intelligent designer who certainly isn't the christian god."

its an argument from ignorance - and on at least several points, personal ignorance on behe's part. but he isn't concerned because he can rake in good money hanging out with frelling young-earthers.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Howdy,

First, let me get my education hat on. I honestly think that evolution should not be treated as the be all, end all of origin of life studies. The way the "law", written by judges who has about as much experience with upper level biology as a trout has driving a semi in a desert, more or less currently has the whole evolution/creationism situation is:

1) Teach evolution as if it is the only answer to the question (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).
2) Do not teach that the theory has any flaws associated with it and to ignore people's scientific objections to the theory (Edwards v Aguillard).
3) Ridicule people's religious objections as much as humanly possible (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education).

The idea behind refusing to talk about any problems with evolution as origin of life is so that people will accept the theory as truth until they are old enough to critically evaluate the theory. They can thereupon make the "right" decision, meaning the decision that the education people want them to make. The failure (or maybe the ulterior goal) of their plan is that they have judicially removed the critical evaluation part from high school, and, unless you plan to major in a biological field (Biology, Biochemistry, pre-med et cetera), will probably never take another Biology course again. So, the vast majority of people out there have blindly accepted that evolution is the answer without ever really looking at the evidence for or against it. This is a major problem.

Putting on the Biology major's hat, yes, there is scientific proof against evolution. I do not have the time or the patience to list them all out, but here is a short list:
1) The Laws of Probability states that the proper assemblage of proteins and nucleic acids is too small to happen on a large enough scale to form life randomly.
2) Some metabolic functions, such as the blood clotting mechanism, cannot have formed by random mutations in single genes without almost immediately killing the organism.
3) The organism's mutation resistance and DNA repair systems are too good to produce enough genetic mutations to form a new species.

Darwin's Black Box by Behe would be a good place for people interested in reading a little on the subject to start.

The fact that I, who will get by Bachelors of Science in Biology this Spring, have yet to read in a textbook how a beneficial mutation has led to speciation using Biochemistry to identify the gene being mutated, the location of the mutation, how the mutation overcomes the repair system wiping it out and how the mutated gene functions in it's immediate environment, is also discouraging. Neither does the fact that creation science can account for all the evidence evolution has about as well as Crick (one of the guys who figured out the structure of DNA and an avid evolutionist) can.

Juggling both hats and throwing in some logic to boot, the evolutionists should have nothing to fear about presenting a scientifically valid intelligent design theory (like the one proposed by Behe in his book) in a high school environment if they are as right as they believe. Having to actually present arguments against that theory, which do not fall apart under the slightest scrutiny by a reasonably educated person, would only strengthen their position. And so would having to actually present biochemical evidence in action like I wish my college textbooks could. Of course, if they are wrong, it would make the evolution proponents look foolish sooner. I think that's a risk they should take.

Ok, let's assume that we were all "intelligently designed." Who was the intelligent designer? The theory contradicts itself with its own foundation.

Juggling both hats and throwing in some logic to boot, the evolutionists should have nothing to fear about presenting a scientifically valid intelligent design theory (like the one proposed by Behe in his book) in a high school environment if they are as right as they believe. Having to actually present arguments against that theory, which do not fall apart under the slightest scrutiny by a reasonably educated person, would only strengthen their position. And so would having to actually present biochemical evidence in action like I wish my college textbooks could. Of course, if they are wrong, it would make the evolution proponents look foolish sooner. I think that's a risk they should take.

"There are problems with evolution right now, therefore God must have done it" is not a valid scientific theory.

Again, you cannot start with the conclusion and look for evidence to back it up and call it science.

"There are problems with evolution right now, therefore God must have done it" is not a valid scientific theory.

especially when most of those "problems" exist only in id proponents' heads. but yeah, id is the silliest form of the god of the gaps.

Creationism can be taught in schools, but not as a science class. It should be included in a religion class that also covers other major world religions.
I agree.

That Adam and Eve stuff is bollocks......!
My opinion is, that people can have many theories on how everything was created, but one things for sure........that crap about Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden.......that's just Christianity's way of explaining lust, greed, creation, etc, and it's all mythological.

Sure, it's a creative story, but that's all it will ever be......a story.
As for whether it should be taught in schools.......yes, the idea of giving the students a choice.....is good.

Here is my saying for today.......I don't Adam and Eve, in Adam and Eve......

That Adam and Eve stuff is bollocks......!
My opinion is, that people can have many theories on how everything was created, but one things for sure........that crap about Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden.......that's just Christianity's way of explaining lust, greed, creation, etc, and it's all mythological.

Sure, it's a creative story, but that's all it will ever be......a story.
As for whether it should be taught in schools.......yes, the idea of giving the students a choice.....is good.

Here is my saying for today.......I don't Adam and Eve, in Adam and Eve......
Um, either it's mythological or it's bullocks. Make up your mind --it can't be both.