Creationism or evolution? and why? Which should be taught in schools?
476036
well since the govenment likes to keep the separation of church and state in our faces and creationism is relgious I think you need to look at who is paying for the education...If you want creationism go to a religous school otherwise, teach accepted science and math and english in america and keep the self actualization out of the public schools.
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
1083318
As an "evolutionist" I side with science and logic that evolution is the method of speciation in organisms.\n\nMy personal opinion on why Creationists find fault with evolution is two-fold. First, a strict interpretation of the often-translated Bible. It is viewed as the ultimate authority and a "first-hand" account of what happened throughout history. \n\nThere are several problems with this, most importantly the translation of words from the original text, into English, which may change the true meaning of words, or more often their isn't a word in English that fits the original word. A good example of this is in Genesis, the main accounting of creation for theists. The word translated into "day" from the original text may have different meanings, it could literally mean a day, or it could mean periods of time. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this throughout the bible, but the problem is clear, logically, you cannot maintain a strict interpretation if your reading a interpretation. Also the first hand account isn't really a first hand account, many of the scriptures are oral traditions that were written down long after the events transpired, many were written a few hundred years after the people in the passed away. We've all played whisper-down-the-lane. \n\nSecondly, the scientific account of life, and it's origins (which isn't considered part of the Theory of Evolution by the way) doesn't mention, and doesn't require a god to exist for it to happen. Unable to separate scientific thought, from religious ones, some Creationists find evolution has to be incorrect because it makes no mention of a Creator. Really, ANY kind of science can never make mention of any kind of God, it is a fundamentally unprovable idea. Nevertheless, because of this, Evolution cannot and will not be accepted by many believers.\n\nPersonally, there is no reason that both ideas cannot be. While the account of Genesis cannot be true, if a God does exist he has created everything else through natural means, it would only make sense that he would do the same in creating life. The difference is, only one can be taught as a science, the other is philosophy.
46929
I don't think science is taught in schools as having "created" the earth, but it does attempt to explain how the earth came to exist in the first place, and I believe the same can be said of religion as well.  \n\nHuman beings have tremendous capacities for learning and thought, and we are constantly engaged in trying to figure out "why things are the way they are."  This often breaks itself up into two schools of thought: one religious, believing God is responsible for everything, and science, which tries to explain why things happen the way they do.  But I am one person who does not believe that the two need to be separated entirely.  \n\nFor instance: many scientists believe in God, and they use science to help them understand what role God played (if any) in the creation of the universe.  Likewise, many religious believers also believe in such scientific ideas as Darwinian evolution, which they believe help them to understand how God created the universe.  \n\nIn fact, if you read the two creation stories in Genesis carefully, you may find many similarities to what modern science tells us about the creation of the universe.  The first creation story in Genesis says that first was the void, which gradually broke itself into light and dark.  This is very similar to what science tells us about stars forming in the "celestial soup" following the Big Bang.  Then Genesis says that the earth was formed, but was covered entirely by water, and was eventually divided up into oceans and dry land.  Science tells us that this is exactly what happened. \n\nNow switching over to the second creation story in Genesis, God is described as creating the simplest plants and animals first over a period of time, finally creating Man (human beings) as his crowning achievement.  This is very similar to what science teaches us occurred under the direction of Darwinian evolution.  \n\nIn a way, Religion's notion of God may simply be another way of saying "How things came to be."  Where science says that evolution "created" the world as we know it today, slowly over a length of time, religious believers say God created the world, slowly over a length of time.  \n\nI certainly don't mean to strip God of his divinity for religious believers, nor to inject God into science inappropriately.  But I would say that with an open mind, you may find that neither science nor religion is "right" or "wrong" when explaining the origination of the earth, but may be two different ways of expressing similar ideas.
287120
Try reading Dawkins: "The blind Watchmaker".  It's a very good appreciation of the current state of evolutionary theory.\n\nIt may be that there are some inconsistencies in the theory, but the main mechanisms and proofs are well understood and accepted by most scientists.\n\nCertainly the principles are such that they should be taught in schools to children.\n\nWe shouldn't get confused between matters of faith and scientific fact.  At one time the catholic Church improsoned Gallileo for suggesting that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe.
529292
Well, creationism by definition requires faith since it has at it's core a being that cannot be subjected to experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a natural process and can therefore be subjected to the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory).\n\nAll the scientific evidence that has been accumulated through the years points to the evolutionary process as the means by which all the species today developed. There is no hard scientific evidence in creationism (the Bible doesn't count as it's not accepted as historical fact - no evidence to prove/disprove).\n\nDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying that creationism couldn't have happened, but there is no evidence to support it.
1091714
Darwin ,if he knew what has evolved from his studies on birds and of His publication Origin of species(Bird studies)Being he was a  religious person and well versed in the Bible Creation account, He would turn over his grave.\nA theory is a theory = just a hunch , it does not means it represents reality. Experiment and evidence can be misinterpreted just as well as lawyers and judge do in a Court case.\nPresent day Evolution theory has been forced by court decision to be taught in school as a Science. Now the poor boys in school who are very logical ,still are not able to make sense out of it. The result they are pushed to learn a flawed theory,and they are getting bored to death.\nI wonder if we are wasting our school tax money?
981042
I believe that both creation and evolution rely on religious belief and are supported by scientific observation.  The fundamental beliefs vary as well as the interpretation of the scientific facts.\n\nAs for your points:\n\n1.  I would agree that Creationism does not fit the description of a testable, repeatable, scientific theory... but neither does evolution.  However, there are theories as to how observable scientific facts fit together to support both creation and evolution.\n\n2.  Some "believers" WILL accept evidence against their religion and some NON-believers WILL NOT accept any evidence supporting religion.  But this is irrelevant and does not lend scientific credibility to either side.\n\n3.  There are theories supporting both creation and evolution that allow for error and are peer reviewed.  In fact, many theories for both sides are continually modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence.  In this way both ideas are very similar to all other pure scientific fields.\n\n4.  When talking about the origin of the universe and life, ANY theory must have its origin in belief of something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and will not happen again, as well as the assumption that something existed in the first place to start it all.  Creationists believe in God and creation while Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang and a monstrously long list of extremely statistically improbable occurrences that take place in an amazingly perfect order.  Almost sounds like it needs "divine intervention"...
16854
If you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is depressing. \n\nA recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.
1014228
Sometimes the line between evolution and christianity is blurred. Evolution is not just the theory that we came from apes. Evolution is just the theory that all creatures can evolve over time its like is a bear is mainly living in one environment and then moves to another that is evolution. The theory that man came from apes should not be taught nor the theory that man was made by God. That way nobody is offended. But Evolution should be taught.
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
430814
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
37439
Reporting from Argentina :-)\nThere is no such debate here. I work as a teacher and I've been both in public and private colleges, and also in a religious (catholic) one. \nEvolution is accepted and taught everywhere that I'm aware of. \nAlso, the only creationists I know belong to christian evangelist minorities. Two of my best friends are creationists and we've never argued over the matter.\nCatholics here are not intransigent or bigoted; I'm sure there are some who believe in a litteral interpretation of the Bible, but they keep to themselves. \nI'm aware of the debate in the USA, mostly because  in the Evolution course I took we used US textbooks and they had whole chapters about it. We skipped those ;)\nI think it's very sad.
763971
Because they believe that Darwinian, human evolution is not true and/or it dilutes the faith of literal interpretationists.  According to creationists, when only Darwinian evolution is taught, then their children are confused.  In school, they hear that humans evolved over millions of years, from the tinist single celled organisms.  In church, they hear that God took clay and made one human, and then two, and then somehow other humans existed (that weren't part of the original story.)  Kids might be confused, or they might "wrongly" question the creationism story.\nThus, by showing "creationism" as an "alternative" to evolution, they can (a) reaffirm their religious beliefs as fact, even contrary to the scientific record and the scientific method, and (b) perhaps get other children to convert.  After all it's one more way of practicing decipleship -- "go ye therefore into all nations..." to reach new potential followers of Christ.
432686
The "intelligent design" bandwagon is rolling towards the UK too!\n\nIn direct contrast to the US, we have compulsory school prayer and compulsory religious education, which is probably why we have one of the lowest rates of church going in Christendom (much lower than the US)!\n\nGiven that we have religious education as a school subject compulsory for all students, it seems pretty obvious to me that religious creation myths should be taught in religious education and evolution should be taught in science.  To mix the two would be to confuse the nature of science and religion (the "how" and the "why").\n\nIn the US, you don't have religious education taught in schools, and I think this is why you have more of a problem.  Not teaching children about religion leaves a great many things unexplained!
998806
I honestly don't think evolution goes against the Bible. Sure, it might go hand in hand with the Bible, but the Bible is not meant to be believed word for word (in my opinion). I'm pretty sure it's the morals behind the stories in the Bible that are important. \n\nIt's stupid that the evolution vs. creation debate has reached such a height. It's especially bad in schools. Personally, I think they should teach everything in schools, you know? The theory of creation, the theory of evolution...even the theory that we all come from space. Of course the youth of today believe firmly in the Big Bang and evolution and Lerman's Bubble Model...most of them weren't taught anything else! That makes for a horribly narrow minded generation. \n\nThe problem with people is that they are so stuck in their ways that they can't see the merit of other ideas, and can't see how those ideas just might intermingle. Maybe the seven days of creation really happened over millions and millions of years, or maybe God put life on earth and just sort of let it go. No one can really know, right?\n\nAnd finally, I'm sick of how everyone says that science is the antithesis of religion. It's not. Sure, we keep finding explanations for everything we used to attribute to God, but in the end, there are some things we will NEVER be able to explain. As you said, that one little point of matter had to come from somewhere. Why not God? \n\nAnd on a final note, I also have trouble with the Big Bang theory. Did you know that there's only a few pieces of completely inconsequential evidence for it? First, they say that there's the same ratio of helium to hydrogen that there might have been at the formation of the universe. So? Secondly, the temperature of space is not absolute zero, which most likely means that the universe is moving. While a huge explosion billions of years ago might attribute for that, it is most certainly not the only possible explanation. The only real convincing bit of evidence is the red shift. As things get further away, they take on a slightly reddish hue (do to wavelengths of visible light and such). Extremely sensitive instruments have shown that the universe has a red tint, which means everything is moving further away. Still, the expansion of the universe may very well be caused by something other than a big bang.\n\nAs I said, people really shouldn't be taught this stuff as truth when it's an unsturdy theory at best. \n\nSorry, I know this was a little scatterbrained. I just really think that the debate is stupid.
1173386
Yeah, the only people dumb enough to think you were really arguing for creationism were evolutionists.\n\nBecause your stupid question is exactly what evolutionists think creationism/Intelligent Design is about.  \n\nToo bad you people won't do any independent reading because we all know the public schools aren't going to broaden your knowledge of the topic.