Should evolution and creationism be taught side-by-side in public schools?

@hippyjoe1955 Can you define theory? And then explain why you consider it failed? Because you sound like you don't know what these words mean.

@ViciDraco Based on actual science and actual experimentation and extrapolation you can't get life started. No life = no evolution. In fact the more experimenting we do the more we realise that abiogenesis is simply impossible;

@hippyjoe1955 abiogenesis is different from evolution. Evolution is one of the most well supported scientific theories we have. The failure to explain abiogenesis does not falsify what we do understand about evolutionary process.

@ViciDraco It is the Genesis upon which evolution hinges. Without the whole theory of evolution is moot since without abiogenesis there had to be a creator.

@hippyjoe1955 Evolution makes no statement about the origin of living things. It explains how already living things change through generations over time. Abiogenesis is a different question. Evolution does not even preclude a creator. It might preclude specific creation myths, but not the concept of a creator.

@ViciDraco Yeah it does. Only if you chop out huge parts of it can you reach your conclusion. Evolution is the idea that pure materialism and the ways material interacts has led to a mindless causeless existence of a few years. As is often asked. If your brain is simply the result of and event no different that a tornado through a junkyard creating a computer would you trust the computer or your brain?

@hippyjoe1955 My brain is the result of a prolonged cumulative process guided by selection and survival pressures. It was not a random, highly complex singular event. Your analogy is bad. Learn some real science, not just apologetics.

@ViciDraco Kinda like a tornado through a junk yard. I wouldn't trust it. It has no reason to be factual.

@hippyjoe1955 But that approach is itself dishonest because you are immediately dismissing one in favour of the other.

Besides, education should benefit the children, not external proselytisers wanting only their own version of their own religion to prevail for their own power reasons.

@ArishMell I am basing my conclusion of actual science not wishful thinking. At a recent conference of evolutionary scientists the speakers said that their theory was broken and they needed to re- think it. Actual scientists who are into organic chemistry have said that not only are they not getting close to creating a life form and in fact the more the understand how the real life forms work they believe they are getting farther away from creating one and not closer to it. These people are not Christians. They are just honest scientists.

@hippyjoe1955 I wasn't questioning science. If it finds genuine flaws in the accepted theories it is only what science is mean to do.

I was questioing the implication in the original sentence. "Creationism" is a fringe religious ideology designed to present itself as an alternative to science, to oppress thinking. You can believe in God but that doesn't mean you have to reject genuine research - if you like, to ask "How did God do it?".

@ArishMell Actually more and more 'serious scientists' are coming to the realisation that creationism is a very viable option if only because any other explanation doesn't match the evidence.

@hippyjoe1955 Many scientists who have a living faith in Jesus Christ are not Creationists.

@FreddieUK And many of them are. The fact is that many non Christian scientists are looking at the evidence and have discovered that evolution simply doesn't work. There was a evolutionist convention not long ago and the main speakers said that evolution is a busted theory. It simply doesn't work. Many of scientists who were honest enough came to recognise the obvious that we live in a Created universe. Some are still trying to come up with a patch to cover the HUGE holes in evolution. I know I began my exploration after realising that evolution was not a viable theory. After some casting about I discovered that Christianity did answer those questions that evolution could not. Of course having become a Christian and having moved on from such childish nonsense as "where did we come from" I have found an extremely profound meaning and have only scraped the surface of its profundity. The fact that the Creator of the Universe would take physical form and physically die for His creation. While it sounds shallow it is the deepest thought I have yet discovered. His plans are far above our plans and His ways are far above our ways even as His thoughts are far far far beyond our thoughts. His Death and Resurrection give an entirely new dimension to His thoughts and plans. We are not simply animals that are born and grunt as we breed a new generation even as we grow old and die. There is a whole new depth that can not be fathomed or even expressed in human language.

@hippyjoe1955 I agree and stand with you on so much of what you have written here. However, for some of us, exploring the created universe and understanding that the Bible is not a science book or Genesis diary of events is important. Believing in the immutable truths of the Bible and scientific exploration are not mutually exclusive. To be fair to you, I don't think you have said that, but within the faith community of believers there are diverse views on these things and the problem is that dogma on both sides just doesn't help win people in either camp.

@FreddieUK Your statements are faith statements not facts. We don't know much about the origin of the universe. If we take the position that God is the God of Potentials and so His creation was simply Him setting the potentials into reality within Himself then things start to make a lot more sense. The ancient Greeks held to a theory of primordial chaos from which the Creator God brought about order. It is similar but not identical to the Christian understanding. Both make much more sense that evolution's "In the beginning was nothing and nothing existed for a very long time until suddenly for no reason at all nothing exploded and became everything. Some time later bits of everything again for no reason what so ever got together and made dinosaurs.". Evolution truly is a busted theory and should not be taught at all.

@hippyjoe1955
I understand where you're coming from and have many friends who take your position: we agree to differ while still remaining united on other matters. Without entering into the specific debate, the fact that this is a predominantly held view is sufficient to persuade me that it should be taught as part of a balanced curriculum which explains other scientific and (in a different class) faith positions.

@FreddieUK Given that science is a religion with its own faith should be instructive. We hate the idea that we just don't know. We also hate the idea that there is a God so we come up with all kinds of theories to get around that inconvenience.