Online discussion and chat forum of Premier Christian Radio
Should Creation Theory be Taught in Schools Alongside Evolution?
Just spotted this on Premire 10:
Creationism should be taught at schools
There are calls for creationism to be taught at schools.
Revd Prof Michael Reiss says teachers should be able to answer questions on it without ridiculing a child's beliefs while still explaining evolution and the Big Bang theory.
If for instance in an Islamic faith school, it was taught that Mohamed was a fictional character that had never existed (as may happen if the government get their way to standardise the content of curricula) do you think that Moslem parents would take it laying down?
Why then do we insist that evolution is taught as fact, which effectively says that God does not exist. Should then, parents who are Christians have a say in what subjects, that affect the child’s faith, their child should be taught or in what way they are taught (e.g. that evolution is just a theory).
Creationism should be taught at schools
There are calls for creationism to be taught at schools.
Revd Prof Michael Reiss says teachers should be able to answer questions on it without ridiculing a child's beliefs while still explaining evolution and the Big Bang theory.
If for instance in an Islamic faith school, it was taught that Mohamed was a fictional character that had never existed (as may happen if the government get their way to standardise the content of curricula) do you think that Moslem parents would take it laying down?
Why then do we insist that evolution is taught as fact, which effectively says that God does not exist. Should then, parents who are Christians have a say in what subjects, that affect the child’s faith, their child should be taught or in what way they are taught (e.g. that evolution is just a theory).
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on -
Stevie
>There is no "creation theory" in the scientific sense of the word. There's an unproveable/unfalsifiable creation *hypothesis*.<
Pretty much the same thing can be said of Evolution.
>A hypothesis must be able to be invalidated and have withstood all attempts at such disproof to earn that title "theory".<
So how would you suggest testing the 'Theory' of Evolution? Since Richard Dawkins himself said "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd"* in relation to Evolution it is clear that he knows Evolution is not truly science.
Martin
*"The Genius of Charles Darwin", Channel 4
-
Permalink Reply by Dr David Rosevear on -
One cannot prove that the first man was called Adam. One can deduce from genetics of Y chromosomes and Mitochondria that our ancestor lived a few thousand years ago.
One cannot prove that the world was flooded in the days of a man called Noah. One can show that most geological processes happened catastrophically, both now and in the past. Millions of years are not required.
One cannot prove that initially Nothing became unstable and exploded into Everything. One can interpret the red shift and background radiation to agree with such a scenario. But then one has to use ad hoc postulates such as cold dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Not good science!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
How can you show that limestones, especailly reef formations and siltstones were laid down catastrophically?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Now answer from Dr Rosevear after over three months.
I wonder how many feet of strata were deposited in that time during the flood
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
I am familiar with all these type of arguments . There are a mixture of appalling science and sheer fabrication.
Try a bit harder. please
-
Permalink Reply by Reuben on -
Dr David Rosevear
"One cannot prove that the first man was called Adam"
True but one does not know and cannot prove where the atom came from and who or what split it to cause the "big bang". Things don't just happen on they're own. There is cause and effect. If you own a vehicle, you wouldn't expect that it would shift itself into gear and drive down to the coast; someone would need to operate it.
To not know, believe or be able to prove something doesn't mean it's not true. Also what HAS been proven is that most of the fossil evidence used to support the evolution theory was fabrocated.
The persuit of evolution is basically factuallising theory without 100% knowledge. It would only be fair to teach our children all facts and theories from both evolution and creationism so that they can make up their own minds.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
I am against teaching both evolution and creationism for several reasons. I could easily do a course at any level teaching both, as I would take both creationist and evolution ideas and deal with them point by point.
1. It would take an immense amount of time.
2. By teaching creationism this would make Christianity look at absolute laughing stock and thus put kids off the Gospel
3. It would be great fun to use Woodmorappe's book The Ark a feasability study as a sixth form text. I can imagine 6th formers rolling around laughing about Noah mucking out and the mechanics of it.
4. After a few days of teaching 3, there would be major complains at the waste of valuable teaching time.
% It would have made more atheists than Dawkins ever has:)
-
Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on
-
Michael
>3. It would be great fun to use Woodmorappe's book The Ark a feasability study as a sixth form text. I can imagine 6th formers rolling around laughing about Noah mucking out and the mechanics of it.<
So why would it be funny? Have men not been 'mucking out' domestic animals for thousands of years?
Martin
-
Permalink Reply by N.E.Looney - Preacher on
-
As far as Im concerned the Ark story makes no sense. God we are told was angry at mankinds sinful ways so he sent a flood. Was he angry at the animals as well. Why wipe out the earths wildlife population apart from those in a boat. Why have a boat built. God could easily wipe out mankind with a disease as he sent on the Egyptions. and left everything else as it was. Noah and his family could still have been saved by being imune to the disease.
-
Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on
-
However disease would not destroy the works of men and the intention of God was to destroy all the works of Man with the creature.
If you read Genesis 1-9 thoughtfully you will realise that there is a relationship between Man and the animals. When Adam sinned it didn't just affect Adam and his wife, it affected the whole of Creation. The whole of Creation was cursed because of the Fall. Adam was created as the head of creation and Man's actions reflect on Creation.
Actually the Egyptian were not wiped out by a disease. Their first born were destroyed and their army was destroyed but the Egyptians as a people were not destroyed.
Martin
-
-
I get your point about the Egyptians but my argument about the animal population still stands. Those in the ark were also part of the fallen creation as was Noah and his family. The flood did not wipe out sin on the earth. The first thing Noah did after the flood was to get blotto while being stark naked!
Report an Issue
Have you seen any offensive content? Or abusive postings? Help us make this a safe and friendly environment. Please let us know! We have also established certain rules for using this social site.
A Listening Ear
If any of the discussions or topics on Premier Community have affected you please contact Premier Lifeline. Lifeline is a confidential Christian helpline there for you from 9am until midnight, 365 days of the year. A fully trained team are ready to offer a listening ear.
Amazon at Premier!
© 2009 Created by Premier Christian Media
