Teaching creation in history class instead of science class

@nooneinparticular Said

Why are people so bent on teaching creation in science classrooms when the connection is strenuous at best, when it would be much easier, I would think, not to mention make a lot more sense to teach it in something like history classrooms if people are so hell-bent on getting this in schools.

What logical reason is there to prefer one over the other? Why push so hard for it in science classes and say nothing (that I'm aware of) about the other possible classrooms they could talk about it?

@nooneinparticular Said

Why are people so bent on teaching creation in science classrooms when the connection is strenuous at best, when it would be much easier, I would think, not to mention make a lot more sense to teach it in something like history classrooms if people are so hell-bent on getting this in schools.

What logical reason is there to prefer one over the other? Why push so hard for it in science classes and say nothing (that I'm aware of) about the other possible classrooms they could talk about it?

@MadCornishBiker Said

The answer to that is simple. It's antithesis is treated as a science so it is only fair to compare them both in the same terms. Let's face it evolution is no more a science in the true sense than creation is. It is science in name only.

Of course if they studied them both in history, or even religion that would be just as fair on both.

@offbeat Said

well i think hogwarts got it right when they hired professor snape for the position of 'master of the dark arts'...in other words religion should have it's own category ..and it should be made optional for children to swerve this subject if they or their parents choose to at aged eleven .

@nooneinparticular Said

I would be inclined to agree if it wasn't for that pesky first amendment to the Constitution blocking implementing religion in public schools.

Actually, I AM inclined to agree, but the proposal is unfeasible in this country.

@nooneinparticular Said

Its antithesis is what? Evolution? The two are not as diametrically opposed as you would think. Or rather they don't have to be.

Literal Bible interpretation is rather diametrically opposed to Evolution, but quite frankly every other theory proposed on creation ever devised would be just as equally, if not more so opposed to it as well. That interpretation is rigid in nature and cannot conform to new information, as are most other creation stories told before and after that time (or rather in general seeing as you don't trust the dates of civilizations or any other written record)

Evolution is a concept, or rather an observation, and nothing else. It is like the concept of light in that we can see light just as we can see diversity, and equally we can speculate as to what the components of light and Evolution are, but that is where it ends. Scientists agree that evolution in the micro sense is observable, and are for the most part trying to find the components of that before even considering how they will test such theories on a macro level. They know it exists because they have observed it; not the macro changing speculations of jumping whole phyla's or anything like that but on the micro scale. In the interactions species have between each other and other communities of like and dislike animals.

In much the same way, light is understood to have qualities of both particles and wavelengths, but no one really understands why or how that could be or how it would function as such. That does not however refute the observation that light reacts as both, or the existence of light in general. The fact that they do not understand how does not necessarily detract from the earlier observations of what exactly happened. The lack of understanding does not mean something considered is dead on arrival in science; if that were how it worked science probably wouldn't get much of anywhere.

Creation is different, however, from science. Creation does not use the scientific method. In fact, that alone is enough to invalidate it in the eyes of science.

Evolution and religion are not actually all that opposed to each other if you keep an open mind about the concept and what it truly implies and means. Darwin's original observations were that animals were different based on location and yet bore remarkable similarity to each other at the same time. Working off this data he proposed a theory that all life on Earth originated from a source. He never specified what that source was, how it came about, or what it might possibly be.

Science, even to this day, does not have a very, what I would think satisfactory answer; although their hypotheses do seem rather reasonable and logical, if not somewhat rudimentary. Be that as it may, science and religion are entirely different fields to begin with. Science tells us why, and the theories and laws that we are given give us rules of thumbs (which can be broken) to keep the general concepts in mind and to be able to work with them. Religion gives us a reason for the things we encounter in our lives. Whether people believe these reasons is largely a matter of personal opinion, I feel.

Science and religion are entirely different because they are designed to answer different questions.

@nooneinparticular Said

I would be inclined to agree if it wasn't for that pesky first amendment to the Constitution blocking implementing religion in public schools.

Actually, I AM inclined to agree, but the proposal is unfeasible in this country.

@MadCornishBiker Said

In my view the only creation story worth its salt is the bible one. As for taking it literally, the story is literal but as with all things use of language has to be taken into consideration.

Quote:

Are they designed to answer different questions? Aren't the twin questions uppermost in both where we came from and where we are going? Those are certainly the major questions the bible covers, along with some major detail about how we shall get there.

Science may try to tell us why, but does it actually do so? The bible does definitively.

Quote:

Yes I know that is what Darwin actually observed, and in fact it bears little relationship to evolution nowadays, which goes well beyond the adaptation that Darwin spotted and is the one common ground between evolution and biblical creation, however evolution is definitely the antithesis of creation because evolution denies God the glory He deserves for all His, and His son's work.

Quote:

The problem is that it is when you get to the microbiological level that evolution becomes even less observable and even less logical, that is where the division between scientists crept in, and what led some scientists to doubt evolution completely, hence the concept of design that crept into science almost unnoticed, except by those of us watching science. Hence also books like "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe" (ISBN0-98970-809-5) also subtitled "The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute". and the DVD "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" published by Discovery.org.

Quote:

How can evolution be an observation, since evolution in action has never been observed? No in fact it is at beast a speculative theory based on an interpretation of what little evidence there is, and that evidence can be equally used to support creation. I know, I've done it.

@MadCornishBiker Said

The answer to that is simple. It's antithesis is treated as a science so it is only fair to compare them both in the same terms. Let's face it evolution is no more a science in the true sense than creation is. It is science in name only.

@nooneinparticular Said

Why? Why choose one over another? What distinguishes it from others?

@nooneinparticular Said

Science does not actually tell us anything about why for either question. Science deals in observable phenomenon. Theoretical science is just that; prediction assuming certain parameters. Assuming certain parameters in the universe, this is what we expect to happen.

@nooneinparticular Said

About the Bible, or any religion for that manner, providing answers; they do indeed provide answers to your questions, but whether those answers are believable is not dependent on something like logic or reason, but on how you feel about the answer. They can give an answer but whether it is right or not is purely 'a matter of faith' so to speak.

@nooneinparticular Said

Darwin's overarching theory is the only common ground for competing evolutionary theorists as well. If you think that scientists have anything concrete figured out since Darwin's observations you would be terribly wrong. The specific theories on what exactly causes and affects evolution is as varied as the scientists studying them.

@nooneinparticular Said

Likewise, what exactly happened in terms of timelines have been re written more times in recent years than ever before.

Evolution itself does not deny "the glory of God". It frankly makes no comment on it at all. Different scientists have their own ideas, and they are welcome to it, but the core, and in fact the only thing scientists seem to agree upon is Darwin's core of change over time.

@nooneinparticular Said

Actually...

When you get to the microscopic level, evolution becomes even MORE apparent. Decreased life spans coupled with increased reproduction and recombination rates results in a faster rate of evolution.

Of course, as far as scientists have been able to tell, it also gets a lot more muddled in terms of exactly what happened, but like I stated earlier, this is not enough reason to throw every last thing out.

Evolution is observed at the microscopic level. Like I stated earlier, the evolutionary jumps that most creationists look for, largely those in the phyla of organisms rather than their species, has not been observed. I stated that micro evolution, or evolution on the microscopic level has been observed for quite a while. And even some preliminary (last I checked which was several months at least) findings on inter-species evolution has been observed as well.

@buffalobill90 Said

Evolution is not the 'antithesis' of a literal interpretation of Christian scripture; being 'fair' has absolutely nothing to do with science. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been extensively tested and used by the scientific community to explain countless observations and discoveries. It explains how life forms adapt, increase in complexity and speciate over time. Christian scripture was not written for peer-review in scientific journals, it contains moral teachings, it contains metaphor - it is not rigorous scientific theory and it was never intended to be. It is one of several Ancient Near Eastern myths written by people who had no concept of professional science. What, exactly, is your own definition of 'science' and how is evolutionary theory not science?

If you want the Biblical version of history to be taught in science class, why not also teach the Vedic scripture as well? And why not teach the Old Norse version of history? These are all worth about as much as each other in terms of explanatory value.

@MadCornishBiker Said
=
Evolution does not fit inside that definition because they cannot observe evolution in action, merely adaptation, and the two are vastly different. The best they can do is speculate around evidence whicj can as easily prove creation as evolution.

@MadCornishBiker Said

The biblical one is the transmitted knowledge of the creator and His son, transmitted to earth, and the prophets by His son. No other book can demonstrate that.

Quote:

I didn't say it did, I was asking the question. However evolutionary theory has no phenomenon to observe, apart from the simple adaptation within a kind, which is the one thing that both stories have in commmon.

Quote:

Ah but what is faith? Biblical faith demands evidence, at least as a foundation, in order to have any validity. Anything less is gullibility. If you depend on how you feel about something you will almost inevitably go wrong, logic and reason are the only tools to use.

Quote:

I agree, terribly wrong indeed.

Quote:

In fact evolution does deny the glory of god, simply by leaving Him out of the equation and refusing to accept that it was indeed Him who is the source of creation, thus effectively calling Him a liar by denying His word.

Quote:

If that were true, there would be no room for books such as the one mentioned earlier, "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe" or the DVD "Unlocking the Mystery of life" which exposes the lack of credible evidence at microbiological level.