Why teach Creationism over Science

[Justtristo]

Apart from the fundamentalists and evangelicals nearly wholesale* denial of evolution as a fact. There is something called "creation evangelism", creation evangelism works by trying to convince people that the genesis account of the origin of the universe is true. Thereby making it easier for them to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and Saviour.

http://www.christiananswers.net/evangeli...ation.html

This website explains in more detail why they do creation evangelism, which includes teaching Christian creationism in the schools. Note the advocates of teaching creationism in the schools have no interest in teaching other creation stories, just the Christian one.

* There are a few evangelicals who would accept evolution as a fact, however in their community they are a small minority.

[Captain Scarlet]

....began wearing Brooks Brothers and carrying Coach purses instead.....

Were you describing Ted Haggard?

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Those who advocate teaching creation aren't opposing science, we are opposing the theory of evolution and the claim that it has been scientifically proved to be true.

You are wilfully ignorant of the controversy that envelops the ongoing dispute, theologians and proponents of creation science and intelligent design seek to corrupt the findings and discoveries of scientific fields such as cosmology, biology and thermodynamics to support their dogmatic religious views, its bad enough consensus can be misled by political motives but what you people are doing is insane, you're imposing your worldview and culture onto a quest for knowledge and consequently risk undermining the entire education system and body of scientific enquiry!

By your own omission I can conclude you have no idea what scientific theories actually are. You are talking about the word colloquially which means opinion or assumption, except we're talking about science now, that’s not how scientific models are established from explanations of any particular objective verifiable observation of naturally occurring processes and/or phenomena in nature. We're looking at an explanation to the biodiversity of life here. A theory must be based on the observable, verifiable, testable so that we may draw predictions from it. If we could observe or detect or interact with your creator concept and he demonstrated that he could poof us into existence without evolving over time there'd be no debate – God would be fact not fiction. We do not require proof for evolution theory within natural sciences, scientists already have the validation of the experimental observation in question. Also I suspect you have little to no understanding that evolution is both a current theory and a fact because we have empirical evidence of life-forms changing and developing traits over generations, not to mention it is universally accepted because of said framework's explanatory power. Evolution as a fact is not a claim to absolute certainty, it is an acknowledgement to a high and robust degree of certainty that we have a scientific model with predictive power that can withstand scrutiny.

You clearly don't understand what the term "current theory" is. You haven't presented an alternative or competing theory. You don’t have a model of reality that challenges evolutionary theory with its overwhelming evidence. Don’t even joke with us. You're not even fucking close. You simply assert there is an unseen uncreated creator force that has no experimental or empirical data to support it. All you have is an idea that cannot withstand moderate scrutiny and overwhelming insufferable undying ignorance not to appreciate that. Creationists, like many apologists affirm you can't even go about conducting a test for identifying or drawing a correlation back to god. You have no theory, you barely have a hypothesis, broadly you have a non-answer that prohibits actual investigation of the real world but extensive study of one single collection of religious text, laughable absurd, that contradicts itself over and over again, and no independent accounts to back up its extraordinary claims.

Here is a site that shows that creation can be supported scientifically:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Bullshit. We have the application and concept of falsifiability. We can distinguish between science and pseudoscience by testing theories to see whether they are scientific or not and stand up as a framework.

So either put up or shut up. Falsify creation. What would a reality that was not created by a designer look like? How would DNA and genetic information come about without a supernatural deity?

Welsh Cake, you're my savior. lol.

[Minimalist]

creation evangelism works by trying to convince people that the genesis account of the origin of the universe is true.

And how does this different from standard lunatic rambling?

[Justtristo]

creation evangelism works by trying to convince people that the genesis account of the origin of the universe is true.

And how does this different from standard lunatic rambling?

Never misunderstand the gullibility of our fellow human beings who will believe the lunatic ramblings of somebody with a PhD.

[Minimalist]

Some shmuck with a ph.d. in marketing is not an expert on astrophysics or biiology.

But, I guess to xtians, the difference doesn't matter. Bible-thumpers are inherently gullible.

[DeistPaladin]

Some shmuck with a ph.d. in marketing is not an expert on astrophysics or biiology.

But the schmuck with the degree in marketing is ideally qualified for selling apologetic crap to the faithful. You have to be good at marketing in order to sell a product that doesn't exist.

[FadingW]

What I want to know is what Creationism can actually teach. Seems to me that any lesson would be ridiculously short. Either goddidit or evolutioncan'texplainit.

Let's suppose that God somehow exists and set everything into motion. Now how did God do it?

I have yet to come across any part of Creationism even attempting to answer the question of how.

In any case science is a method, not a conclusion like Creationism. I have no idea why we're even comparing them.

[Minimalist]

I have no idea why we're even comparing them.

Because there are creationist shitwits running around here unsupervised.

[Ashendant]

What I want to know is what Creationism can actually teach. Seems to me that any lesson would be ridiculously short. Either goddidit or evolutioncan'texplainit.

Let's suppose that God somehow exists and set everything into motion. Now how did God do it?

I have yet to come across any part of Creationism even attempting to answer the question of how.

In any case science is a method, not a conclusion like Creationism. I have no idea why we're even comparing them.

Basicly it's explained as god using god magic