Unlike the theory of evolution, Creationism is not supported with solid evidence, but with Bible quotes. All Creationism arguments against evolution I have seen so far are based on misunderstanding of it. So no.

Many lay people generalised the term evolution and use it in and out of context in their ideas and opinions. Before we go any further we must know what type of evolution we are really talking about. If what is meant is biological evolution then science has only the writings of Darwin to support it. Creationism is an alternative that could be used to explain the cause for the Universe as science is unable to offer an explanation of what caused the existence of the universe...all that science can do is to show how this was done through the Big Bang! There are too many unknowns to be too judgemental on these issues...therefore an open mind will serve us best!

...So evolution isn't entirely reliable because we only have old writings to prove it, but Creationism is accurate? that doesn't make any sense. Christians have only their Bible to prove Creationism; at least Darwin used facts.

I believe that creationism, intelligent design, and other philosophies should definitely be taught in school - in a religion and philosophy classroom, a course I believe should be offered, if not required, of all high school students. Such a course should cover all alternative theories, and explain that there are many people who believe these things in society today. This beliefs should be valued and explored, and the philosophies should be considered from an anthropological and intellectual standpoint. I also believe such a class should look at Descartes and Socrates and make kids think critically about religion, science, and the everyday way of thinking.

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution, including fossil records, DNA similarities between extant species, observing generational changes in bacteria and other microorganisms that reproduce rapidly, and research done concerning genetic drift, gene flow, mutation and natural selection. So, you know, more than just Darwin.

emilyroxx read again i never said creationism is accurate..are you using the straw man fallacy?....i only said it could serve as an alternative explanation for the origin of the cosmos. Science can never tell what brought it about because it would have to have concrete events or states to measure and observe. Since we can only do so once it is already brought into existence, we can only investigate the how it came about through the Big Bang!

Another argument you brought about is about christians having only the bible to prove anything....why would you pinpoint "Christians" here? Secondly we don't really need the Bible to see that there must be something altogether unknown to our sciences to bring about the Universe....because normally scientific textbooks for school or universities will only show what is already known for facts with proofs but the textbooks will not go into philosophy or musings about the mysteries still locked away from us. These things are debated among those who are at the forefront of ongoing research and their research so far has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the way the Universe is constructed cannot be by mere accident since the parameters are so limited and tight that it would actually require fine-tuning, hence the Anthropic Principle or Intelligent Design.

Now as to Darwin using facts, this is another fairy tale for amateur scientists. Darwin's investigations really looked at genetic variability in a number of species in a limited time period and not evolutionary transition from one species to another which if the theory is correct would require billions of years to progress from one to another species. So the question begs itself, how come Darwin based on some 30 or so years of investigation of a limited number of species' variability and internal organs can interpret the facts into biological evolutionary progress between species that actually would require billions of years to complete? And why without one single observational evidence have we taken biological evolution for granted based on the interpretation of Darwin? The issue could be very long, but i will stop here for now!

Cinders - the plenty of evidence are facts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand but yet persists in the minds of people. Basically what people lay or professional scientist are doing is actually investigating certain characteristics common in different species and assigning them on the back of biological evolution. But this is simply an overly exaggerated generalization.

We must first understand correctly by what is meant by biological evolution. This simply means that a number of members of one species are transforming through repeated genetic mutation over a period of billions of years into another species adapted to survive more fully than the first species. Hence the survival of the fittest or another phrase usually used is the transition from simple organism to more complex ones.

This description above is totally different from genetic variability. They are not one and the same thing. And most specimen taken as evidence of evolution show genetic variability and not crossed genetic mutation of more complex forms.

If you read throughtout the paleontological materials the fossil records show major fossilization of large mammals and dinosaurs but they lack what would actually be required by a true biological evolutionary track - transitional species.

For instance if you find one animal having weird features, they take it and tag it as part of the evolutionary evidence. But have you ever seen a man with six fingers? I have! It is not evolution it is simply one individual showing a genetic variability among the species....so likewise nearly all of the specimen are of that sort. A real evolutionary evidence should present itself in not just one individual of a particular species, since fossilization says that they were fossilized in bulk. You should find a number of individuals (according to statistical data on fossils, you should find them in the hundreds or so) having features of two separate species. But there is none! An example is if you find a man with six fingers this is only genetic variability and not evolutionary steps. But if you find a man growing feathered wings on his back then you have a solid evidence of evolution.......so the question i ask where are the hundreds of individuals who present common features of two different species over soil strata that spans billions of years? There is none!.....all they can find are examples of genetic variability in one or two individuals of one species....and they just tag them as evolutionary evidence. This is so ....well if you are looking for conspiracy theories...forget about JFK and Moon landings they really happened.....the real conspiracy is evolution...biological evolution is lacking the only evidence that could settle it as a solid theory of science in the same way as thermodynamics and relativity....

by the way i read only the bold title of the topic and actually it is emilrox who started this thread and what he says about creationism saying in 7 days the universe was created missed my attention.

I don't agree that it took 7 days and the Bible seems to be saying so but not.......actually billions of years are involved just like the Big Band theory says, an implication of the general relativity.

I believe in stellar evolution that require billions of years since we can look back in time through the light-years distance of quasars and distant galaxies and stars and see their evolutionary tracks from birth to death. The Bible even hints at billion of years in one passage. So the fact that most Christians just tore out the first few verses of the bible out of context doesn't mean the bible is at fault. But we are not getting into a biblical discussion here.....i will reiterate what i wrote previously....stellar evolution is correct and has observational evidence to prove it unlike biological evolution......the universe took billion of years till today and we know how it came about- through the Big Bang an implication of one of the most tested scientific theory of modern times - general relativity. However, the theory and all our science cannot answer the question of what caused the Big Bang in the first place...this is where i suggested that alternative explanation might do as well such as creationism...since creationism offers an explanation of the origin but science doesn't not........since we are talking about creationism and science.......i really wonder why you guys wanted to talk about biological evolution???

I agree with Cinders. It can be taught in a religion/philosophy class.

But in a science class? No way. Creationism is not science.

Of course not. Evolution is a theory based on scientific facts, and that's why it's naturally taught in science class. Creatonism is a part of the christian/jewish religion. They have nothing to do with each other.

^^
Would creationism be categorized as "religious mythology?"

^ Do you mean as a school subject? That would be the only fitting category, as long as it includes every other myth on how the world was created and it is clearly distinguished from science and well-known, accepted facts.

No I don't believe any religious beliefs should be taught in school. Religion is a personal and controversial thing that many people disagree on. I believe teaching creationism in school is disrespectful to students who have differing beliefs or no beliefs at all. Not only that but it would probably offend some parents as well. However I don't believe evolution is so much a religious belief as it is science.

^^ I believe we should teach all religions in school, simply because students have such diverse sets of beliefs. After all, how can we learn about new ways of thinking, or ever understand each other, if we refuse to discuss something that is so paramount in so many people's lives?

So according to you, paper_girl12, we should not discuss anything in school that people might disagree on or that is controversial? Good bye to debate clubs and teams then... Or sex education.
If we are gonna be so sentitive about everyones believes and opinions, we might as well stop talking altogether. Because no matter how cautious you are, there is always a chance someone will be offended. We can't control wether or not someone gets offended.

I agree with Sappp that there is always a chance that someone will be offended by what you say. You just have to try not to be interntionally rude, and aplogise if you cause offence. With the topic on hand, I personally believe that in RE students should learn all theories on not only how the world was created, but on every other topic. It's then up to each individual to form their opinion based on what they have leaned.

Hmmm, well I don't think that it should be taught in a science class but like Cinders said, in a philosophy class. I used to be a creationist myself, and the only reason I believed in it was because of a Creation Museum in Glen Rose Texas. They had all these fossils and junk, probably hoaxes.

If it were to be taught in a Religion/Philosophy/Mythology class and not be taught as cold, hard truth? Yes.
If it were to be taught in a Science class and be taught as a something that can be proven with scientific evidence? No.

I feel that if they are going to present the THEORY of evolution, then they should also mention creationism. Theories aren't proven, so honestly I don't think either should be taught as fact in school.

Prelude: Thanks for bringing some life back to this spot, nice to see people back again :’)

Just want to suggest that there may be a misunderstanding of what a ‘theory’ is in science. Rather than the common usage of the word as something approximating a ‘belief’ or an ‘assertion’, scientific theories are explanations that must meet three crucial requirements: they are supported by evidence, are testable and falsifiable, and can be used to make predictions.

For a hypothesis (an educated guess) to graduate to the status of a theory, it must thus be backed by a wealth of evidence and repeatedly pass the tests it is subjected to. It is actually the highest standard that an explanation can attain in science (on the same level as a scientific ‘law’). And it’s a standard that evolution has passed with flying colours: in a hundred and fifty years of intensive study of the natural world, it has never failed any crucial test, and an overwhelming amount of evidence has been found which supports it. Every discovery of a new fossil or species is a test of evolution – if a new species doesn’t fit into our patterns used to classify living things, or a fossil is found in a dramatically different rock strata to that which is expected, then the validity of the theory would have to be questioned. Despite our discovery of millions of types of fossils and species, not one has contradicted the underlying premise of evolution.

Basically, only the most powerful and best-tested scientific ideas earn the designation of a ‘theory’. Other ‘theories’: the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism), germs can cause disease (germ theory), everything is made up of atoms (atomic theory). To call evolution a theory should actually be seen as an argument for it rather than against it.

In contrast, creationism is not a theory in this sense: it has not been verified by observation and experiment, it is neither testable nor falsifiable (because it’s ultimately dependent on divine intervention and no test could disprove this) and no predictions can be made from it. Only the ordinary definition of a ‘theory’ can really be applied to it, rather than the scientific one, which makes me think that it has no place in a class trying to teach science.

Well, when I used to be semi-active on here, I used to make some pretty strange arguments, I'll admit. But, I didn't write anything for this, so I'll do it now.

I believe that there is no reason not to teach this stuff at school. Of course, I think it should be an optional subject that people can choose to take if you they want to know about the potential alternatives to science/evolutionary theory. I honestly think it would be beneficial for them to know. I also think it would be good for people who already share these beliefs, so they know that they're welcomed in society, too - I think there is far too much segregation in society with beliefs. And it creates tension between people of differing beliefs. There is far too much of that in society and we can never really work together, if we are forcing ourselves to divide, due to being intolerant of other peoples' opinions.

To be honest, there was a period where I was on here, questioning about evolutionary theory. I mean, I fully understand that evolution is factual, as far as scientific theory can relate to the public and those who are interested. I also don't disagree with it, either. In fact, I have become quite interested in evolutionary theory and there is a lot more to it than just Darwin, or Dawkins. But, yeah, I guess some people don't actually know enough about evolutionary theory, since it is widely attributed to Darwin from "On The Origin Of Species" and from his catalogues and accounts of the journey to the Galapagos Islands.

I actually kind of got interested in creationism for a while, too. I don't particularly believe it, really, but I have absolutely no intention trying to disprove it, or bothering to say that it's wrong, or anything. It's just another belief, another theory of how things came to be.