Evolution v. Creationism

Hey! I agree with Creationism. And so do a lot of highly intelligent people I know - some of whom are in science professions.

I think it takes a lot of gall and global groupthink to "decide" that one theory is more plausible than the next (when neither are proven by fact), and require it to be the only education a child receives.

Yes. It is true that among the intellectual elite, or those that think they are intellectual, Creationism is publicly looked down on, and religion is considered the opium of the masses.

I am not at all an advocate of silencing voices in the public, and as a person in the legal profession, I do not agree that a separation of Church and State is a justification to wholesale ignore religion, or to stonewall it, or to silence it by legislation. The State was supposed to protect religion, and to protect people from abuses of religion. Somewhere, in all of this, we've gotten to a place where the State has adopted an actively atheist agenda, and abuses religion - and in doing so, it thereby "chooses" a side, which places us right back where the Pilgrims were - terrified that they were going to be abused by the state for believing in something the State doesnt. Whatever happened to the free flow of ideas? The State wasnt supposed to adopt an agenda, but was only supposed to play the part of a nuetral observer and referee, a protector of all, regardless of agenda or belief. Instead, we have a State that is so afraid of itself, so afraid of its ability to remain nuetral, or so beholden to an atheist lobby, that it is actively frustrating real discourse on the subject of religion.

And then we get those few "make-up" calls every now and again so the political process of the State will have legitimacy - this is when we get them forcing people to go to Muslim schools, or forcing NY taxpayers to PAY for a private Muslim school. Things like this are in EXACT opposition to the very anti-religious agenda they espouse!

And everyone that believes in God is not a backwoods, backwards, unlearned idiot.

And - Lets not get confused here with all the buzzwords we are tossing around.

for sake of this post:
science = fact
fact = tangible, known, factual discoveries (this category does not include suppositions, regardless of how generally accepted they are - let us remember, as has been pointed out, it was once generally accepted that the world was flat)
theories = suppositions based on facts, or interpretations of the unknown, based on the known; also random suppositions

As has been mentioned, the myriad 'scientific' discoveries found do not prove evolution with singularity. My point is that studies have consistently argued that the FACTS at the base of science can be interpreted or argued to apply to both evolution and creationism/ID, and more. No one is arguing that the discoveries are non-existent - merely that they give rise to a more expansive interpretation than simply "evolution."

However and unfortunately for the science field, modern scientific thinking has decided to apply the findings as though they exclusively prove evolution, and evolution only. This is the crux of the debate - not what religion, or which religion, or IF religion. The rub, then, with believers in creationism/ID, or believers in anything OTHER than evolution, or hey, even people who want investigate or know about theories other than evolution, whether they believe/accept them or not, is that the classroom adopts a singular interpretation from "science."

I have several friends who are teachers - be it Junior High, High School, even University. Most of them agree that the public scientific education, in that it is exclusively adopts evolution, is lopsided.

Lets recap: this is not about which religion's vantage point is taught. I could care less if a science class spent one week on Creationism/ID, and hit every major religion's thoughts on the idea, or just generally discussed within the framework of ID that most major religions, as a whole (though there are differing versions of "how it was done"), believe in the God-Creation account. All I argue is that when evolution is taught wholesale as the ONLY way, the ONLY theory, the ONLY correct version - that's problematic, dont you think?

What kind of education - true, enlightened education precludes discussion of, or at least mention of other, dissenting views? The entire point is not to shut down the opposing viewpoint, but to with reasoned logic and compelling evidence and/or persuasion, successfully argue for the viewpoint it thinks right.

See the diagram I attached.

Bookmark this post: