Do you think that Darwinism and creationism should be given equal attention in Kansas public schools? / LJWorld.com

Previous Next

Asked at Royal Crest Lanes on September 26, 2004

“I think that they should both be taught. I don’t see why not. They should spend more time on creationism. People are already familiar with evolution.”

— Tyler Bradshaw, Free State High School junior, Lawrence

“Yes, everybody should know about both of them. They should get equal time.”

— David Currant, grocery stocker, Lawrence

“I guess they should both be taught equally. I don’t think that having religion in schools is a problem.”

— Dacia Sprow, bowling alley clerk, Lawrence

“Yes. I think that it should be taught equally. They should teach children as much as they can. I think that the more knowledge that they have, the better.”

— Travis Jimboy, brick layer's assistant, Lawrence

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

26 September 2004
at 5:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beck (Beck Wilson) says…

“Darwinism”? That's rather quaint, isn't it? What about the modern synthesis and Stephen Jay Gould and all that jazz? …

Do they even get to those in biology class, or do they spend too much time arguing about non-science stuff in science class?
26 September 2004
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mrcairo (Anonymous) says…

When I was in High-School, we had to take so many hours of Sciences. We had a choice, Life Sciences, Biology, Physics, Religious Sciences. Any combo of these disciplines could fulfill the requirement. This was some 40 years ago. Oh my am I that old?

The bottom line was freedom of choice. Isn't the U.S. all about freedom of choice?

I'm not sure they should be given equal anything, except equal access.
26 September 2004
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JHAWKGURL (Anonymous) says…

mrcairo, I like your way of thinking Ã
You really hit it right on the head….”they should be given equal access.”
I totally agree……..
26 September 2004
at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Of course they shouldn't. Creationism is not a science: there is no testable hypothesis, no physical evidence to support it, and no way to verify it. Here's what the course content would be for a semester of “religious science and creationism.”

The world exists.
God made the world.
It's all written in this book.
End of course.

If you want to teach creationism, fine. Put in in the social studies sector, and make sure to point out that it is not, and in no way should be considered scientific, empirical or factual reasoning. It should also be noted, as well, that Genesis flies flat in the face of ALL empirical evidence available on the subject. Anything else, or to impose it as a “science” would be to mislead our children about scientific theory and reasoning, and give them a disadvantage to other children.
26 September 2004
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Savage (Anonymous) says…

At my stay in the Mid America Nazarene College Dorms biological sciences were taught scientifically. Hey … religious institutions of higher learning produce MD's too.

I remember the only time they focused on creationism in regular science classes was at the beginning of the semester. They had other special classes for creationism if you wanted to take them.

I think the issue would be fair if they just spent a chapter or two on it and offered a few lectures also at public schools.

My zo teacher believed in creationism, but believed that after creation, evolution proceeded and began to take it course as well. Not too separate theories, but rather a combination of the two.

Unfortunately the media plays it off like it has to be just one way or the highway. The stories by design seem to gear people to pick a side rather than come to some kind of compromise. It's totally absurd.
26 September 2004
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Hi_Jinks (Anonymous) says…

beck, you say “Darwinism” is rather quaint?

How about….the big bang theory????!!!!

Don't ruin my day by telling me that that theory/term is rather quaint too!!
I've got (more than)a few “big bang theories” of my own that I wouldn't mind sharing with everyone. And I do believe that many of you (including “nicegirl”) would find
“my theories” most “enlightening” in terms of information/content–if not downright “shocking” in terms of discription/vividness!!

But I will refrain from doing so………….

At least for the time being.
26 September 2004
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Larry (Anonymous) says…

The problem is that evolution is many times taught as fact rather than theory. Do an Internet search on Josh McDowell and read his book? He is a scientist who set out to disprove creation and came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no other way to discribe our existence, other than creation. He became a Christian after completing his research.

Everyone can provide names of individuals who believe in creation because they have been taught Creation is correct from birth to adulthood. We can also find individuals who believe in evolution because that is what they've always been taught. Finding someone who believed one way, then changed his mind after doing his own research is quite interesting and puts a totally different prospective on the debate. I would suggest that it is far more difficult to find a scientist who has gone from creation to evolution than from evolution to creation. If you have no relationship with God, it is far easier to believe in evolution.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree with Mr. Cairo in terms of providing options. However, should a teacher present evolution as fact, than creation should be taught right along side it in the science classrooms. After all, there are some scientists who believe that we have more scientific evidence supporting stories from the Bible than macroevolution. As for microevolution - Intelligent Design explains it.

Jonas,
I'm not sure if I'll get back to this site today but will revisit it in the next couple of days so please give specifics on ALL evidence in Genesis that flies flat in the face of all evidence on the subject. Afterwards please provide evidence that macroevolution exists. I'd enjoy reading your thoughts.

26 September 2004
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mrcairo (Anonymous) says…

Of whom should the creationists refer to when providing explanations?

The Hindu view?
Buddist?
Christian?

Perhaps we could employ some out of work Taliban to do the deed.
26 September 2004
at 8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Larry: To quote Bill Hicks: Dinosaurs. If the entire history of the world from creation is explained in the Bible, why doesn't anyone bring up dinosaurs. You'd think someone would have brought that up.

Geological dating puts the earth at, what, 150 billion years or something. According to a biblical timeline, it's around 10,000 years, isn't it? There's skeletal evidence of humans existing in many, many places for much longer than that.

When Cain is exiled, he goes to the land of Nod, builds a city, and suddenly there are many many people to fill that city. Where did those people come from?

I don't recall ever saying anything about macro-evolution, as I know very little about the subject. I have heard of experiments in which moths have changed color over several generations to blend in with trees, and I have heard as well that in single sex evironments, frogs evolve into the opposite sex to reproduce. I have heard that this has been tested and observed. The point I make is that it's a testable scientific theory. If you can give me a scientific experiment to provide evidence for creationism, or even the existence of god, outside of the parameters I listed above, please do so. Until you can do that, it can not be considered a science.
26 September 2004
at 8:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

The kicker is, I do believe in god, and I do believe that he is responsable for creating the physical and biological systems that exist. I believe that's called the intelligent design theory, isn't it? I believe it because, in the end, you have to accept that something came from nothing at all, or that some form has always existed, which is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp. The choice then becomes whether that creation was a concious design or a mere happenstance. I find the idea of a total lack of purpose or intention dark and depressing, so I choose the idea of it all having a design or reason to it. But I'm not going to pretend to myself that it is a scientific viewpoint, because it is not, and it should not be presented as science. Of course, there is more to human existence, to my mind, than scientific discovery and exploration, and there are parts of the human condition outside of empiricism. That's why there are other parts of the school curriculum, and creationism could easily fit into one of those. It should not be considered a competing scientific theory with evolution, as the scientific community embraces one and rejects the other.
26 September 2004
at 8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

island (Anonymous) says…

Posted by Savage on September 26 at 10:11 a.m.

“My zo teacher believed in creatibelieved that after creation, evolution proceeded and began to take it course as well. Not too separate theories, but rather a combination of the two.

Unfortunately the media plays it off like it has to be onism, but just one way or the highway. The stories by design seem to gear people to pick a side rather than come to some kind of compromise. It's totally absurd.”

~

That's pretty much correct, but it isn't the media that divides the issue so drastically, it's the general political ideology of the two sides of the hotly debated issue.

Design doesn't even have to be “intelligent” in origin if it arises from some simple physical need for it.

This is where your point really hits home, since evolutionists will inevitably behave with equally fanatical willful ignorance, as hard-core creationists, when it comes to any form of purpose in our universe that naturally evolves humans for a reason other than purely random chance.
26 September 2004
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Larry (Anonymous) says…

goatdog

I assume that you believe that evolution is a science because we can test it. Ironically, we have no proof via tests/experiments/inquiry that macroevolution ever occurred. We simply theorize that it occurred and teach our children in the public schools that it is fact. Funny thing is - evolutionist are constantly trying to prove their theory and many specific items that they attack is actually addressed in the Bible. Evolution vs. Creation has been an interest of mine for the past five to ten years. Below, you will find a few points to ponder which I think interesting to say the least.

Long before empirical science codified the law of entropy,(second law of thermodynamics). Scripture clearly addressed it. The prophet Isaiah and King David both declared that the heavens and the earth would “wear out like a garment” Isa. 51:6; Ps.102.25-26

National selection and mutation: To believe that mutation occurs in a positive fashion is ridiculous. Mutation as we know (scientifically) are either neutral or harmful (mostly harmful). Mutations are responsible for over 3,000 hereditary defects in human beings alone.

“Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinishm which most Americans learned in high school” Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980.

The fossil records offer no support for gradual changes due to the abrupt transitions that occur. There is absolutely no link in the fossil record between man and ape. In addition, the Grand Canyon is missing stages 2, 3 and 4 of the evolutionary stages. Evolutionist believe that erosion is responsible for this. Think about it! Erosion specifically took stages 2, 3 and 4 out of the Grand Canyon but left stages 1 and 5. WOW!

The Bible says that “all the high mountains under the whole heavens” were once covered with water. If so, wouldn't you think we would find fossils of sea creatures all over the earth including high in the mountains? Check fossil research for the Himalayas and you will find fossils of sea creatures. How did they get there? The Bible says that the mountains were under water so it all makes sense. Evolution can't explain this! Through scientific research of the fossil records, we find that stories from the Bible are much easier to believe than the THEORY of evolution.

What amazes me is how little people know about Charles Darwin. The guy was crazy. In a letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881 (Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1, page 316 Darwin states, “The more civilized so called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existance. Looking to the world at no very distanst date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”

As for evolving from nothing - there is an old latin phrase, ex nihilo nihil fit -“from nothing, nothing comes.”
26 September 2004
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Larry (Anonymous) says…

I often wonder if evolutionist refuse to allow creation education because they realize that our children have enough common sense to see the problems that arise with evolution.
26 September 2004
at 9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

redpenguinz (Anonymous) says…

Larry: just a minor point — the quote from Darwin was actually a rather typical mindset of the period in which he lived and wrote. Imperialism was popular during that time and the US, Britain and other “white” nations were busily conquering the world (like latin america and africa). It was not uncommon for any scholar of that era to refer to the superiority of one race over another. Not that I'm claiming Darwin wasn't necessarily somewhat off his rocker in other regards, but this frame of mind was most definitely not unique to him. :)
27 September 2004
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

I believe that macroevolution is where one species turns into another with large changes, like an ape into a man. Jonas, I think what you were discribing was microevolution, small changes that make the animal better suited for the environment. In your examples, the animals didn't completely change into other animals. Those small changes would be microevolution. That is just what I thought those terms meant. As far as being taught as science, I would say no, but I do think they should be taught alongside each other. The key to critical thinking is researching and getting evidence about both sides and then making an educated decision. By not teaching creationism we are hindering our children from making educated choices. I feel that scientists or intelligent people want to have all the facts before making a decision and that principle alone would mean that each subject should be given equal time. Larry, very interesting quotes and facts. I am with you all the way about creationism explains things a lot better than evolution and carbon dating ever has.

27 September 2004
at 1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

island (Anonymous) says…

Don't get me wrong, but…

1) Early Greek philosopher who maintained that strife and change are the natural conditions of the universe.

-Heraclitus 500 BC.

2) Mutations and Natural Selection occur in a postive direction for the naturally preferred species, via entropic favoritism.
28 September 2004
at 11:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

couloir007 (Anonymous) says…

Let us not confuse the facts and get the facts correct. A theory is:

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

A hypothesis is:

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Let's not confuse the two. The theory of evolution is an “assumption” to describe the “fact” that organisms evolve. Not that I expect to have any impact on the discussion, but you never know, maybe one person will reconsider this. Regardless, I don't understand why people insist on trying to teach a religious view, held by less than 20% (assuming all xstians believe in creationism) of the world's population, in a public school. I'm not an xstian, or muslim, or anything and I don't want your views, and that is what they are, impressed on my children. The US is secular, separation of church and state. You are less intelligent than Thomas Jefferson and the like, so quit meddling with Constitutional affairs. Also, the earth is a little over 4 billion years old, not 150 billion or something.
29 September 2004
at 5:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

island (Anonymous) says…

I think that what is often confused and certainly abused in regard to this, is the difference between a theory and the preferred theory.

Extremist creationists will often throw out that Evolutionary theory is “only a theory”, which is kind of like throwing chaos back in evolutionists faces, because it implies that one theory is as good an another. But a commonly used definition among theoretical physicists for the preferred theory is:

-The most accurate, (not perfect), reflection of nature, in the least number of steps.

A more complex theory can only be preferred if it is more accurate. Contrary to popular opinion, the preferred theory is, therefore, more absolute.

Evolutionary theory is preferred because the “assumption” is supported by “facts”, which, together, produce a very accurate reflection of nature, and challenges to the theory can only make it stronger if it is for real, like Einstein's Relativity, which is tested in this manner on a daily basis.

In other words, the most absolute theory isn't “just a theory”, for the reasons given.

heh… the whole universe is less than 15 billion years old