Career & Inspiration

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

If we don't teach creation in school, because of other people's beliefs, why teach evolution?

I don't really believe in creation (or evolution), but it just saddens me how people bash on creationists, and don't let them learn creation in school, while it's okay to teach them the [i]theory[/i] of evolution.

I see this as bullshit.

Both sides have no proof that either creation happened nor evolution (thus the [i]theory[/i] of evolution). In my opinion, we should just leave both out completely (or give students an option).

It's not fair to creationists to not be able to learn their beliefs, while other beliefs are forced down their throats. It's just not fair in my opinion.

What do you guys think (and yes, I did get this idea from another person's post about wanting to fight a creationist on their beliefs)?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

The issue is teaching creationism in SCIENCE class. It's perfectly fine to teach it within the context of a class on religion. But creationists want it taught as science.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@AliBabe74: So, evolution doesn't prove SCIENCE. It's just a theory made up by a human.

It can be classified as science, but not SCIENCE (meaning that its actually true). Thus should not be taught in a SCIENCE class, or it can be taught, but not just classified as the truth (and vice versa).

LothricYoungerPrince · 18-21, M

That is just messed up @AliBabe74:

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

"Evolution doesn't prove science"
Wtf does that even have to do with it? Evolution is based on factual evidence. The "Theory" Of Evolution, as with all scientific theories, is the best current explanation for those facts. Science is based on FACTS.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@AliBabe74: We can have facts on evolution, but that doesn't prove it really happens. It can just be facts about evolution, but not scientific facts that are actually real.

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

Okay, so you don't know anything about science. Okay.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@AliBabe74: Actually I do, but I'm just saying both sides could be wrong.

How can we possibly really know if creation did occur, or if evolution exists?

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

@BlackBloodDemon: because evolution has been OBSERVED. Perhaps you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution as many who are ignorant of the subjects do

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@AliBabe74: Creation has been observed as well. Not as much as evolution, but it has been through spirituality and actual observations.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@BlackBloodDemon: We don't know, with abolute certainity, that the Theory of Evolution is completely correct, it's just the best explanation we have for the observable facts. Incidentally, did you know that Newton's [b]Laws[/b] of motion have been shown to be wrong by Einstein's [b]Theory[/b] of Relativity? Scientists don't mind admitting it when a theory is proven wrong or incomplete.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@suzie1960: I understand that, but then why do they get touchy when someone tries to prove to them that evolution is wrong (or some/most of them)?

Why should we have to teach evolution in school when we don't know it's for certain?

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

@BlackBloodDemon: the FACTS are certain. The current explanation for those facts can and possibly will change.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@AliBabe74: The facts are not certain, and if you say the facts will "possibly change over time," your whole argument is now invalid. You're saying that evolution may not be the answer.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@BlackBloodDemon: The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the observed facts. Creationists simply claim evolution is wrong but are unable to offer a better explanation supported by the available evidence.

Science doesn't claim to know everything (it doesn't really claim certain knowledge of anything), it just offers consistent explanations of the world around around us.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@suzie1960: Creationists get their "facts" from the Bible and the overall Earth (they can prove from the Earth's conditions, but they may not be able to bring it out as well as someone who is trying to prove evolution).

Those 1,000,000 year old bones could possibly be just as fake as the Bible.

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

@BlackBloodDemon: no. The facts stay the same. Other facts can come about that can change the overall explanation. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@AliBabe74: It's perfectly understandable, but someone has to decide if they want to believe it's true.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@BlackBloodDemon: The claims made in the bible are not supported by the available evidence, they are not "facts".

AliBabe74 · 46-50, F

@BlackBloodDemon: okay. I'll break this down to simple terms.
Evolution: actual observable FACTS.
Theory of evolution: the explanation of those facts.
Creationism: NO ACTUAL FACTS.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@suzie1960: But they are "facts" based on the person who wrote it....

The Bible was formed by multiple "authors" (Paul, David, etc.), and in translation, many points could have been lost or taken out just like certain points in evolution.

suzie1960 · 61-69, F

@BlackBloodDemon: No, at best they're just hypotheses or conjectures.

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

@suzie1960: Pretty sure that evolution has some conjectures as well....

redredred · M

@BlackBloodDemon: please list those conjectures you cite in evolutionary theory. Thanks

BlackBloodDemon · 22-25

The amino acid chain sequences
preserved fossils
the fact of not knowing if you're completely correct

redredred · M

@BlackBloodDemon: so you not only don't know the definition of "Theory" but the definition of "conjecture" escapes you as well.