4thought.tv

If creationism isn't a fact, then is evolution? There is no proof to evolution, and if you ask me about creationism then all I must say is read the Bible! >.<

Laura,evolution, in its molecules-to-man form, isn't open to falsification either. It is simply a fact that many well-qualifed scientists have doubts about evolution and it is only fair that older pupils should be made aware of this and given a chance to hear what some of the alternative views are. Otherwise, we are advocating a dogmatic, totalitarian approach to the teaching of science which will permit no dissent.

In view of the scientists that were evolutionists who, on re-examining the facts at hand saw the poverty of backing for neo-Darwinism and thus have since become ex-evolutionists, it is perfectly reasonable to present the 2 models and the evidence, so an intelligent and free decision can be reached by students. There are growing lists online of such scientists and doctors.

I could not help but laugh at the comments of Laura Horner, who accused Creationists of starting with a concept, and then finding evidence to prove it. Isn't this exactly how the evolutionists work, and for that matter how mainstream science works. First comes the concept, then the hypothesis, which, according to the evidence, develops into a theory. Evolutionary researchers are possibly the most selective researchers I have ever had the misfortune to encounter, whole blocks of evidence (hard facts) have been totally ignored in favour of the concept, that takes God out of the world. Darwen was a brilliant scientist his idea was logical, but sadly has been disproved by modern science and technology; his 'blob of jelly' that constituted his 'simple' cell has now been seen to be anything but simple. Of course creation should be taught as a theory, along side of evolution.

What confuses me with this debate, and pretty much all the comments i have read on this topic is that it becomes about whether evolution is 100% fact and should be taught as the only scientific explanation of how we got here.
That isn't really what the argument is about. the argument should be quite simply this:

Does creationism hold up as a scientific theory?

Whilst there are scientists who disagree with evolution, this is irrelevant to the debate, we are not questioning the ultimate veracity of the theory, merely that is a valid theory by scientific standards. Evolution is a theory which is extrapolated from observable supporting evidence. Creationism has no credible evidence outside an old book and the belief of its ardent supporters. this does not make it a credible scientific theory.
I'm all for alternatives to evolution being taught - but surely to be taught as scientific theories they should qualify as such?

Fully agree with Laura on this one. It's not simply a case of evolution having a stronger case, it's that creationism doesn't have a case. It hides from the quality control that all other scientific theories undergo and then claims to be stronger than evolution's case! On top of this, the proponents of creationism know that they don't really have a case, and it shows through their methods. They often enter schools without the parents being aware of what's going on, then target children before they are aware of the counterarguments and flaws. Where they have a stronger backing in the US, all pretence of wanting both sides to be presented are abandoned and any pro-evolution arguments are banned or censored. If creationism was at all viable or credible, its supporters would not need to act in this manner.

Can anyone tell me what CREATION THEORY is?

Interesting when you consider that in this day and age that creation teaching is ever growing in Schools. There is a reason for that its because scientists have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the world is six thousand years old. Also man did walk with dinosaurs! Also there are no recording in the fossil records that evolution took place. As one creationist put it we welcome the teaching of evolution but along side that creation is science and needs to be taught as well so the kids can make up there own mind. He also said just to have one point of view in science is just plain dangerous.

Laura startles me that someone could believe the Grand Canyon was created in one day. Parts of it are at least two billion years old.

I believe that creationism should be taught in schools. Backwards. That is, as an case study of why critical thinking skills are so important and how to employ them to avoid it, and similar baloney wherever it might crop up.

Creationism is an interesting world view, but it is NOT science.

Yes, as long as the original kabbalistic version is also taught. The sephir yetzirah speaks of nothing becoming everything, time and space being created from nothing, and seven aeons of creation - it is analagous to quantum and particle physics and gives the lie to the false dichotomy between science and religion, which was merely introduced as a divide and rule tactic by some neanderthal types who desperately need to cling on to their delusions of power and control. And, by the way, I AM RIGHT! LOL!

Evolution is a theory with some evidence supposedly backing it up. Creationism is a theory with some evidence apparently backing it up. As long as they teach children that neither is fact they should teach it all but with the caveat that neither is proven and both have their pros and cons. Some scientists have given up on both and started a new theory - it all should be taught. The thing I'm against is us teaching ours kids something as fact with no argument allowed. Surely we should give them more credit and let them have all the theories and then make up their own minds. Otherwise isn't it slightly akin to brainwashing?

Creationism is essentially a religious belief and the origins of creation began with the supreme being, that is what we are all subjected to thinking that someone had created us, we are a product of something whether we are religious or not, that is one way of looking at it.
I think the subject of creationism can be welcomed into the school curriculum as part of Religious studies and be explored in many philosophical ways in an existentialism context.
It should be an open subject which anyone from any background, faith, or non faith, any particular groups can share opinions on, we are all participants and creators our selves, so learning about it is just another way of appreciating the creations around us.

In terms of science, no one can really argue the facts, scientists would prove evolution or big bang theories and they will always be an ongoing debate.
I think it is good for schools to advocate and engage creationism as part of the curriculum, it will provoke some kind of discussion or debate amongst students which is good because it will allow pupils to broaden their horizons and minds to other views, increase their knowledge and question wider aspects of life for example of why we are here, what bought us here?

Is this debate for real? It's 2011 people. We know the earth is not flat, we know we are not the centre of the universe and we should know that religious teachings have no place in the science class. Honestly, we would be the laughing stock of the developed world if we allowed that to happen. Science and religion are utterly incompatible.
Look up 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' to see what happened when they tried to foist this creationist nonsense into science classes in America.

Laura, to say that you are Canon in the Church of England where does the Bible stand for you? Do you believe that it is the infallible Word of God or not, that is the question! Do we see creatures from different species pairing together today. No, God said every creature to its own, so how can Darwin and his evolution theory stand, when he, on his death bed confessed his doubts. Creationism should be taught is schools.

what is harder to believe. That the earth ourselves and all the wonderful creation was created by someone who is superior to humans.
Or there was a big bang life started and since then everything has just evolved including all the planets including it's unfailing timing.
How can someone who claims to belive in the bible then come out with comments discrediting the creation process.
The fact is the bible version of creation agrees with the majority of what scientists have found.

Of course creationism should not be taught in state schools paid for by tax-payers. If religious zealots want to teach sentimental twaddle they should pay for it themselves. The cars, mobile phones, and computers that these people undoubtedly use (except prhaps for the Amish etc.) were not just 'created' as a result of righteous living and prayer, they developed from the same scientific method which resulted in the realisation and development of evolutionary theory.
Most of the Christian funadmenatlists do not even understand where the bible came from and do not read Genesis properly. Unlike the Sunni Muslims and some Jews, most Christians do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God.
My reading of Genesis is that Adam was formed from the dust of the earth [Gen.2v7]; God took a rib from Adam to make Eve [Gen.2v22] but men do not have one rib less than women, which one might expect if one is to take the story literally; Adam and Eve then conceived Cain and Abel, who by chapter 4 are the only 4 human beings on the earth - Cain then kills Abel [Ch.4v8] leaving Adam, who eventually lived to the age of 930 years!! [Ch.5v5]; in the meantime Cain somehow dwelt in the land of Nod, on the East of Eden, and Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bare Enoch [Ch.4v16 & 17], but it is by no means clear where this wife came from.
Is this the earliest recorded incidence of incest between Cain and Eve, who appears to have been the only woman in existence at this time, or did Adam and Eve have an unrecorded daughter, and sister to Cain, with whom he mated.
I think the believers should tell us. I am pepared to accept that there was an unrecorded woman since women generally are not treated very well, and after being created and conceiving Cain, Abel, & Seth there is no further mention of Eve, she just disappears. Adam, on the other hand, during an eight hundred year period has what appears to be another crop of sons and daughter [Ch.5v7]. Were these to Eve, or did Adam resort to incest?
The more you read this nonsense the more nonsensical it all becomes. If a god is responsible for this twaddle then it is not a god that I have any respect for.
I haven't even mentioned the polygamy of Lamlech {Ch.4v19] or his vengeful nature, and homicidal tendencies [Ch.4v23]
Albert Thomas

No-one actually knows 100% how the world began (does it even need a beginning?).
Schools should only be teaching children certifiable facts.
Consequently creationism and religion have no place in schools.

Laura, Have you ever looked at the factS - or do you just talk withouy proper knowledge? Furthermore, IF evolution were true, it makes God a liar (and also refutes the fact of the Fall of man as death would have been present before man had 'arrived'. I suggest that you actually make an objective study of the comparative facts before arriving at any opinion. Presumably you have knowledge of evolutionary THEORY (note - not Fact) - can I suggest http://creation.com/ or http://www.creationworldview.org/ as useful websites to explore to that end.

I don't believe that creationism should be taught in science classrooms, but I don't have any objection to it being taught as one of many religious world views (as long as it actually was treated as one of many, not preached as absolute truth) in Religious Education (RE). Science is the study of evidence and the theories based on that evidence. As far as I am aware, the only evidence for creationism is what is written in the Bible. Evidence for evolution can be found all over the world in many different forms.
By the same coin propsed in the video, should we not teach all the creation myths of the world to students? After all, what makes the Judeo-Christian creation myth any more likely to be true than the creation stories of the Greeks or Romans? If you think about it, the same people who push teaching creationism in schools would be equally passionate in pushing study of the Roman myth, had their beliefs not disappeared centuries ago.
Teach pupils of creationism in the RE classroom by all means, but treat it as an equal alternative to the corresponding stories of the Hindus and the Aztecs and all other belief systems. That way, pupils would have the same choice regarding which myth (if any) they choose to believe as they would in the situation proposed by this film. But for those of us who are scientifically minded, creationism is sorely lacking in evidence and thus does not come under the category of science. So I would strongly protest if creationism ever found it's way into a science curriculum. Keep religion and science as separate entities in schools.

Such amazing comments and all based on total ignorance and very possibly fear that what they believe, everything they believe, may be wrong. Just to believe in something does not make it true, and evolution is not simply a belief as so many American court cases have already judged, and America is the 'home' of those who feel the need to believe the Bible is god's very own words, when even that is proven to be simply not that case. As I say, Creationism is pure uneducated ignorance, and ignorance has no place on schools, as has no religion, it's just a 'crutch'.

If you teach creationism in schools you undermine all science not just evolution and biology but geology, cosmology, geography, physics, chemistry etc Because if creationism is true then all of these sciences are lies and we may as well give up on education altogether and just teach religious obedience.
Then you have the problem of which creation story to teach or do we teach them all?

It should be noted that its not that long ago when many scientists believed in the 'steady state' theory ie that the Universe always existed. This contradicted Genesis which indicated there was a definite beginning, which is waht most scientists now believe with the big bang theory. So just a few years ago, scientists were wrong and Genesis was correct and it is only now that they agree. In other words scientific theories change on a regular basis so noone should assume what scientists think the evidence suggests is in fact the truth. Personally I do not have a problem with the idea that evolution was the way that God chose for life to develop on earth (it does not explain how life began) but there are issues with it - Id recommend a book 'God's Undertaker - Has Science Buried God?' by John Lennox for further reading. It is disappointing that many people still view creationism as the idea that God created everything in 6 literal 24-hour days, about 6000 years ago. I believe God 'started' the big bang, but there is no timeline stated in Genesis - indeed, how can you have a literal day as we understand it without the sun?! People need to use their brains (which God gave us) both in understanding the Bible and science.

No, creationism should not be taught in schools - it is not a valid hypothesis: it can not be tested!

If creationism is taught in rs it is clear thr it is a belief and not fact, much like everything else taught in rs lessons. I don't believe in creationism but children should be taught about different belief systems and given the option to make teir own decision on what they do or don't believe.

I believe that we are an alien experiment; they created an atmosphere, dropped a few creatures and watched it from above. That would tie creationism with evolution. Can we teach that in school?

Creationism is an absolute load of rubbish, fairy stories to help children go to sleep. Science is fact, God is an apparent invisible genius who made everything. Anyone who believes that is mental. Religious Studies should be about teaching kids about religions out there that people believe in, and should have no bias; and they should only be taught about it so people aren't disrespectful of others.

Yes creationism should be taught in religion. evolution IS scientific fact since the maths adds up and when the math adds up there is no argument.

I am very curious to know about the roots of this 'movement'/belief of 'creationism'(with no capitals please) - and how this arrived in the UK in particular??? It seems to be catching here more than in Europe. How come? And why is the church so closely linked to education in the first place (in the UK)? What is history of this, in my view, inappropriate involvement - knowing that at the bottom is the rivalry which church will have more followers and power. Many thanks for clarifications.

As a current Year 11 student who has resonantly studied the topic i feel we should be taught it as many of my fellow students - including myself- understand very little about the ideas of Religion and it helps to understand society and variety of beliefs people hold.

However i fully agree with Laura as often we are taught with a biased slant and there should be a clear difference between science and a belief! I feel RE is over taught in schools and should not be a GCSE all must take. In KS4 it should be merged with Citizenship as RE talks a lot more about society than Religion. I must say however that this is only based on my experiences of the subject and i have only been to one school and im sure it differs greatly!

Creationism proves science to a degree. If as you say there is no proof about creationism then how much more proof is there for evolution. If creationism wasn’t taught in schools then how can people make their own decisions on the religion? People should be taught about creationism because after all many people have proved how everything came into existence. People should know why everything in the world has order regularity and purpose as Thomas Aquinas states. These are all points to point to the fact that someone powerful created the world and people should know this.

I have heard this argument by creationists for years now.All i can see is the attempted errosion of our christian faith by dubious legislation,minority fringe groups and anyone else who supposes that our country would be all the better for having no belief system at all!

Laura,
Very good argument, eruditely and logically explained. I am certain given more time that you would have explained how various natural sciences have exposed concrete evidence for, not only human developement but the developement of all species on earth. I don't know if there is a God, as my daughter pointed out to me 'what pushed the atoms together to create the big bang'. What I do know is that Darwins theories on evolution has been proven repeatedly. When 'creationsim' has the same concrete evidence as evolution, then I may conider it to have more validity.

Wikipedia lists about thirty different stories as to how the world came into being. So alongside Christian creationism, I consider that the other twenty nine should be taught. Would any Christian creationist please tell me if they agree, and if not, why?

I await your comments. Tnx RD

Here's a bit of our 'bad science', as just posted eleswhere on this labyrithine site, in reply to being called a 'flat-earther':
Fortunately for us, the Bible told us c2600 yrs ago in the book of Isaiah [as can be seen in the essentially unchanged maunscript displayed in Jerusalem today], that the earth was 'ROUND', adding to what Job told us even earlier, that it 'was hanging on NOTHING', and as many OT books said, in 'stretched out heavens', where the 'sun circuits the heavens' - something astronomers only rediscovered last century.
I'll stick with the Transcendent Intelligence that inspired that wisdom, rather than say, the fantasies of Stephen Jay Gould [the American ex-evolutionist, somewhat like Dawkins but with manners], who said, quoting from memory, that
'HUMANS ARE A GLORIOUS EVOLUTIONARY ACCIDENT THAT REQUIRED 6O TRILLLION CONTINGENT EVENTS'!!
That's 60 trillion chemical accidents in exactly the right order to produce scientists form slime, all somehow 'saved up' by a random, non-teleological 'proccess', when evolution's sole fact, 'Natural Selection' [apart from comp. monor vartion within Kinds], only conserves or eliminates what is already there!
Believe it if you must, but don't think that is more rational or logical than believing 'In the beginning God created [Bara = from nothing] the heavens and the earth'! Hallelujah!

People who support evolution don't set out to prove evolution. That's the difference.
"Creationism should be taught in schools: read the bible!" Very compelling argument, Timothy.

Good points.

Science is looking for evidence, creationism is not. If science uncovered evidence for a god, the scientists involved would still publish that evidence. An example of this is the recent evidence that particles can exceed the speed of light. If this is found to be wrong then the current theories may be vindicated, if it is found to be right then the current theories need to be, at the very least, re-worked. These types of evidences will not be covered up by scientific method.

Creationists routinely try to bury evidence against their version of creation.

Evolution : reams and reams of evidence, including the fossil record, breeding in animal husbandry, Earth age estimates using reliable dating techniques, geological evidences, such as sedimentary rocks, etc.

Creationism : no physical evidence whatsoever. The only thing that suggests that this is true is the writings of half-starved desert dwellers thousands of years ago. Their barely literate writings have been translated into and between languages picking up changes throughout that time, and with suspect agenda.

It's a no brainer.