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 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 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!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Sparkes on -
As far as Im concerned the Ark story makes no sense. - So do you only believe that which makes sense to your mind?
God we are told was angry at mankinds sinful ways so he sent a flood.
More than man's sinful ways is involved. "Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Humanity had also been corrupted.
Gen 6:4-5 "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
Was he angry at the animals as well. Why wipe out the earths wildlife population apart from those in a boat. - We are not told what impact sin had on animal life, but the wickedness of man was great in the earth" would indicate a wider impact than just with one another. However, earth's atmospheric conditions changed after the flood. God was making a new start on earth with just a few people and a few of each species of animal. There are spiritual applications too.
1 Peter 3:20-22 "... the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
There was no possibility of Noah going back to the old world. The old world was destroyed. Baptism (by immersion) is typified.
2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Furthermore, there is a picture of preservation through trial and of judgment on the ungodly.
2 Peter 2:4-9 " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
Then, there is the issue of God's man's' skepticism regarding the Lord's coming.
2 Peter 3:3-6 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"
Then there is the fact that God who judged the earth with water will again judge the earth with fire.
2 Peter 3:6-7 "... the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
The ark landed on a new earth. After earth's fire judgment, there will be a new earth for which the New Jerusalem.
Revelation 21:1-2 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."
Why have a boat built. - This was God's way of salvation. Judgment was by way of a flood. The ark was God's provision. It was suitable protection through the tempest. Despite the ridicule of others, Noah was obedient to God's instruction.
We see a picture of God's salvation today. There is only one way of salvation. The Blood of Christ is ridiculed and rejected by so many, but is the only way of salvation.
God could easily wipe out mankind with a disease as he sent on the Egyptions. and left everything else as it was. - The 'disease' on the Egyptians did not wipe out all Egypt. Who would have buried all the diseased bodies? What impact would this have had on the environment? On animal life? Noah would have seen the devastation all around him. Instead he had a new world, a new covenant and new responsibilities.
Also God did not want to leave everything else as it was. When we trust Christ as Saviour, we cannot left everything else as it was. There has to be a life-style change.
Noah and his family could still have been saved by being imune to the disease. - But then then the rest of creation would remain the same. God's way of Salvation is not to make us immune from the effects of punishment, but to save us from it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Derek P. Blake on -
Michael, I have done several presentations to young people (‘A’ level and university level) about evolution and creation and I have never had one laugh (except at my terrible jokes). I have tried to present both theories and expressed my issues with both. This has been received well and intelligent questions have followed. We have enjoyed these discussions and had some great fellowship during which the discussion has often continued.
-
Permalink Reply by Maria Johnson-Tanner on -
One cannot prove that the first man was called Adam.
The Hebew word for 'man' is Adam.
-
Permalink Reply by Steven Carr on -
If children are taught that the world was created by the Demiurge, should they be ridiculed?
One belief is that the universe emerged from Hiranyagarbha, meaning the golden womb. Hiranyagarbha floated around in water in the emptiness and the darkness of non-existence. Ultimately, this golden egg split and the cosmos was created. Swarga emerged from the golden upper part of the Hiranyagarbha, whereas Prithvi came out from the silver coloured lower half part.'
Should this be taught in schools?
Advertisement
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.
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.
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!
FEATURED EVENT:
For more information and to book your tickets at only £5.00 each, click here
Click here for more information and to book your tickets for only £10.00 each!
Badge
© 2010 Created by Premier Christian Media
