God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

The Evolution Of Man: The evolution of man is a subject of great interest. According to the theory of evolution, man has descended from monkey-like creatures. You might have heard a lot about the "ape-man". The general impression given to people is that an unbroken chain of fossils exists to demonstrate the evolution from monkey-like creatures. But this is an entirely false impression.

Fossils do not exist to prove human evolution ! About a century ago many people did think that some of the fossils that they discovered belong to the so-called ape-men, but today the scientific community itself has rejected them. Many have pointed out that the initial enthusiasm (and false belief) was generated by two things. First, there has been a high level of bias to establish every human-like and monkey-like fossil as "ape-man". Second, most fossils were only fragmentary, made up of a few teeth and few other bones. Since almost every discovery produced less than ten per cent of the full skeleton of its owner, wrong labeling and interpretation was common. With time, however, the situation has changed.

Today scientists have dozens and even hundreds of complete skeletons belonging to some of them (the Neanderthal and Cro Magnon men). Also, the techniques of investigation, comparison, and analysis of human-like and monkey-like fossils have advanced very much. As a result the scientific community has discovered that none of the skeletons/bones/fragments come from monkey-man intermediates.

Scientists have now found that all the alleged ape-man fossils can be placed into four categories:

1-Fossils of cent per cent monkey-like creatures. (Australopithecus, Ramapithecus).
2-Fossils of cent per cent humans (Neanderthal Man, Cro Magnon man).
3-Fossils that were nothing but deceptions. (Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, etc.)
4-Fossils that were suppressed because they contradicted the theory of evolution. (Java skulls, Olmo man, Castnedolo man).

One beauty of science is it's repetitive investigation. Nothing is beyond re-evaluation. Consequently all the alleged ape-man and monkey-human fossils have been coming under repetitive evaluation. As a result the fossil-experts themselves have concluded now that no fossil ever discovered has ever come from an ape-man. There is no evidence that man has evolved from lower animals.

If the hypothesis of evolution is correct, then it must be supported by fossils: billions of intermediate creatures should be discovered. But that has never been the case. All plants, animals, and humans discovered have been found to be fully developed and not intermediates.

The evolution-believing scientists were able to produce only a handfuls of alleged intermediate forms. But the scientific community itself has been re-evaluating these fossils. It is their own verdict that none of these alleged fossils furnish plant, animal, or monkey-human intermediates. Some of the highly acclaimed "intermediate" fossils have even been found to be forgeries.

Once again all this material was taken from the following website:

http://www.apologeticscourses.com/Evol.htm

"Evolution"(Macro) is a theory. Much like Creationists..."Evolutionists" have a certain degree of "faith" that the principles supporting their theories are correct..even though they have no real substantive scientific evidence to support them. Both "Scientific Models" should be allowed to be taught in Public Schools.

separation of church and state.

evolution should be taught in textbooks and creatonism should be taught at church and at home.

Originally posted by Curl_Up&Dye
separation of church and state.

evolution should be taught in textbooks and creatonism should be taught at church and at home.

Definition of relgion:

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I believe Darwin's theory falls under these guidelines. So it should be excluded from scientific textbooks as well..

whobdamandog> I would like to congratulate you on your well-thought out posts. However, you have misrepresented evolutionary theory:

[list][*]Evolution does not occur by chance alone but by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

[*]Entropy constantly increases in closed systems. Order from disorder is common in nature; Consider the formation of snowflakes.

[*]Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. The following 22 examples have complete dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps:

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.

[*]Human beings did not evolve from apes, rather apes and humans share a common ancestor. This is evident in the fact that human beings and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA.[/list]

Moreover, Creationism is not science in the same respect that Fox News is not journalism; In both cases, facts and observations are interpreted to fit a particular world view. At best, Creationism is a theological interpretation of science, and at worst, it is an veiled attempt to interject theology in public schools.

Well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree...All of what you posted can be rebutted by information in previous posts. Nice debating with you all though.

instead to agree to disagree, agree to take the evolution/creationism discussion to the appropriate thread like the mod asked

I already did..my point was that both should be allowed to be taught in public schools...based on the fact that both have a certain amount of "substantive scientific evidence"(I use this term loosely) supporting them..

the supreme court and the first ammandment disagree with you

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I already did..my point was that both should be allowed to be taught in public schools...based on the fact that both have a certain amount of "substantive scientific evidence"(I use this term loosely) supporting them..

What's scientific about Creationism? You can't even prove that there's a creator.

Creation says there's a creator behind the whole process. Well, that's a believe, not a fact. What evidence is there that there's even a creator?

And you know what's funny? Most myths have their creator having some humanoid form or a connection with their surroundings. Guess what? There's an entire universe, but the creator has a connnection with just Earth? Truth is, it's all in man's head. God didn't create man; man created god to explain the world/universe. Man's always created stories to explain the universe - most of the time with understanding the workings of the world.

Science is just a recent tool man used. However, atleast science is the observation, examination, experimenting, theoritical, and ever changing way to explain the universe. It's not some b.s. people pull out of the a$$ and claim to be real, without evidence.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Definition of relgion:

[b]
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I believe Darwin's theory falls under these guidelines. So it should be excluded from scientific textbooks as well.. [/B]

Um, no. Darwin traveled the world collecting specimens and developed this theory. It's not a belief. DNA evidence has been used to determine the relationships between species and trace back to common ancestors.

Dogs, cats, pigs, and cows are great examples of evolution. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/evolution.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holycow/

whobdamandog forgets to mention that religion also needs a "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
If you copy dictionary.com, please give the source and copy the entire definition, not those that suits you

I think we should visit wikipedia regarding this whole Evolutionist and Creationist feud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_versus_evolution

Besides Theistic Evolution doesn't sound so bad. 😉

Originally posted by yerssot
whobdamandog forgets to mention that religion also needs a "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
If you copy dictionary.com, please give the source and copy the entire definition, not those that suits you

Silly boy..Each "guideline" represents a seperate definition of the word religion. A religion doesn't need to be denoted by "supernatural powers" or a "creator" If you read the complete definition of the word..you would have seen that..next time if you attempt to disprove my point..make sure you include ALL the information supporting your argument..lol...

Anyway Evolution could be considered a "Religion" based on any three of those 3 definitions...now it's up to you to prove that it can't...

Originally posted by Beyonder
Um, no. Darwin traveled the world collecting specimens and developed this theory. It's not a belief. DNA evidence has been used to determine the relationships between species and trace back to common ancestors.

Dogs, cats, pigs, and cows are great examples of evolution. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/evolution.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holycow/

Your confused my friend...

"Macro evolution" refers to various species of plants/animals changing into other species of plants/animals over extended periods of time..this is a THEORY...and has not been proven to this date. If you have read previous posts, you would see that the theory contradicts itself in many ways..and there really is no substantive/valid evidence supporting it...

"Micro evolution"..is not a theory..it is a scientific fact..however..I don't even like using that term..it's a silly term made up by hard core evolutionists to support their imaginary "Macro/Mega" Evolutionary tale...
The appropriate word to use in place of it is "Adaptation" which is something that the theory of creationism supports...Adaptation can be seen in Man/beast/plants..etc..

Darwin was a bigot and a liar...and most of his "Macro" Evolutionary fairytales revolve around the "White Man" being at the top of the Evolutionary chain..and minorities being at the lower level a few steps above beasts...for people to even consider his "foolish" illogical rantings as scientific fact just shows how warped this world has become..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your confused my friend...

"Macro evolution" refers to various species of plants/animals changing into other species of plants/animals over extended periods of time..this is a THEORY...and has not been proven to this date. If you have read previous posts, you would see that the theory contradicts itself in many ways..and there really is no substantive/valid evidence supporting it...

"Micro evolution"..is not a theory..it is a scientific fact..however..I don't even like using that term..it's a silly term made up by hard core evolutionists to support their imaginary "Macro/Mega" Evolutionary tale...
The appropriate word to use in place of it is "Adaptation" which is something that the theory of creationism supports...Adaptation can be seen in Man/beast/plants..etc..

Darwin was a bigot and a liar...and most of his "Macro" Evolutionary fairytales revolve around the "White Man" being at the top of the Evolutionary chain..and minorities being at the lower level a few steps above beasts...for people to even consider his "foolish" illogical rantings as scientific fact just shows how warped this world has become..

Here is the definition of the word "religion." It can be defined by any or all of the four various definitions listed in the link below...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Now please prove to me as to why Macro/Mega Evolutionary "Theories" can not be classified as one....

Taken from http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro15.html

One of the most insidious features of Darwin's evolutionary speculation was that it sought to erase the fundamental differences between man and animals. This not only invited a comparison between man and the apes, but also between the "highest" and "lowest" humans.

Blacks and American Indians were among the first to be singled out as being "lower" than Caucasians. In his book The Mismeasure of Man (Chap. 3), Steven Jay Gould pointed out that some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the "superiority" of the white race. For example, assuming brain size had something to do with intelligence (it doesn't), many anthropologists intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians. Social Darwinism thus came to serve as a "scientific" justification for racism.