Creationism Vs Evolution?

Question

Why are people on the left so against teaching of Theory of Creationism alongside Theory of Evolution in class rooms?

My understanding was that they are liberal and open to dialogue.

Evolution and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is still a Theory and never have been accepted as Principal of Evolution.

So one you can teach one theory why not a counter Theory and let the Pupil decide what makes sense and let the pupil defend his/her findings.

I place this question in Elections Section because it has come up again due to nomination of Sarah Palin as VP on the Republican Ticket.

Answer 1

I don't have a problem with teaching Theory of Creationism as long as Evolution is right alongside it but from what I've experience 'creationists' wouldn't allow it and I would never allow my kid go to a school that only teaches 'creation'.

Answer 2

The dirty little secrete is that liberal mainstream science is as biased as liberal mainstream media.

Scientist have no proof that there is no God.  

Answer 3

evolution is the best theory we have. creationism is more likely to be way wrong. if you play the odds you have to bet on evolution. it may be possible that creationism is partially correct but not likely.

Answer 4

I think it's because of the Separation Between Church and State law. Creationism is definitely a Christian Idea.

Plus, if we teach that, then why not all of the other religions creation "myths"?

And then we'd get into which are the "most important" to teach and blah blah blah, so let's just stick to our separation law.

Answer 5

Honestly as both a Christian AND an Earth scientist I find that both go hand and hand at quite a few points... one just must have an open mind about it all and really research it for themselves... but there are too many people that are closed minded and don't want to look at either side of the issue...

ADD: I would have added this sooner but I had to sleep.. anyway.

1) The seperation of church and state DOES NOT imply that religions cannot be taught in schools or the ten commandments are hung in the courtrooms... it simple means that the state cannot/will not control the church nor the church to the state... it is very often misquoted so please go look up the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote were he said this...

2) If you look at most creation stories of other religions (other than the poly-deist religions) they strongly resemble the creation "story" in genesis... of course there are some cultural differences but they are very close. The particular belief that I am thinking about is the Southwestern Native American tribes...

Answer 6

You want it from a "left" perspective?

I have an idiot friend who says there is no god only science and that is ridiculous. But when it comes to Biology, I want to just to learn about evolution. It will never be a fact, because we can't actually observe it (maybe we can find outselves evolving, beats me) But creationism is just about the idea that we were created and designed. The difference is, if you believe that, you can learn that in church, but atheists don't have to hear it.

Answer 7

They don't there main argument is ! you gotta teach all the religions then . 2 People understand the different religious books differently. 3 Evolution is only a non religious theory

Answer 8

I don't know, i guess you could

Answer 9

I think it is more of a separation of church and state. Evolution is based on science where creationism is more religion focused. Personally had I had something with creationism I wouldn't mind because I am open minded but I still don't think it belongs in public schools since evolution is a part of a core curriculum, if one is that interested in creationism it isn't hard to look it up on the internet, and learn it in church .

Answer 10

I wouldn't have a problem with it being taught along with evolution & ID, perhaps not in the same class (say a science/biology class), but a world religion studies or something along those lines.

No matter what people believe, they are all theories supported by evidence that can be flawed & disputed.

What's tricky is if creationism is taught, which religion's version would be used? Not all religions base their creation beliefs on the King James Bible and to attempt to cover all of them would take some time.

Knowledge & respect of other religions & beliefs can only help a student and ultimately our world. But, it must not attempt to endorse or promote one belief over another.

Edit: Forgot to add, that if a parent.guardian disagrees with what's taught, they should be allowed to remove their child from class without repercussion.

Answer 11

Katie had the right answer!

I mean if you were God would you hand carve everyone of us?

Or make some tool and let the humans   "discover" it?

Answer 12

The people on the left are against it because there is no proof of creationism whatsoever. It would be an intellectually dishonest to teach it in a classroom. The Theory of Evolution, however, is based on facts. Many of them. It is only called a theory due to the fact that no missing link has yet been discovered.

It is also illegal to teach it in America for several reasons. Reason number one is that there is a separation of church and state. The first amendment of the constitution bans religious discussions in a state run public education system. Religious views may be taught in private schools that are privately funded, but not with federal tax monies.

The second reason it is illegal to teach in public schools is because it would show favoritism to major western religions. Creationism is not simply "The God of the Holy Bible created the heavens and the Earth", there are many religions who feel it was a multitude of gods or spirits who created the earth. Norse, Roman, American Indian, Hindu, Persian, Judeo/Christian, Greek, Shinto, Egyptian, Islamic, Buddhist, Celtic/Druids, etc. etc. all have different accounts of how earth was created.

I am an Atheist. I personally don't see why anyone should need to be subjected to creation myths. I find it offensive. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I am also on the "Left". I feel that creationism is a step backward in scientific achievement. I feel that teaching that the world is flat is just as absurd as teaching creation myths. I feel we should move forward with more discovery about our natural world and universe and not delve into conjecture.

Thank you for your question. I hope that this answer satisfies your curiosity in left/progressive thinking.

Answer 13

Creationism isn't science.  Let's get an atheist to preach at your church next sunday....I'll bet you'd go for that in New york minute!  Not!  It is true that evolution is a 'theory', but there's a scientific definition of the word, 'theory'.  A theory is a coherent group of general propositions based on observed data used as an explaination for a class of phenomena.  Observed data is fact.  A massive amount of observed data is science.  Science from a dozen different specialtys confirms that species change over time.  The fact that life on Earth has been almost wiped out several times and has always come back based on the DNA of those few species left is proof enough.  Of course you could make the argument that 'GOD', after wiping out almost all of the stock of living critters and then re-created a whole new batch is still in the creation business.  But even the Good Book doesn't say that and neither does the fossil record.  Creationism isn't a 'theory'...at best it's a hypothisis, a conjecture.  It's not 'science'....it's hokum!  

Answer 14

First of all, I don't think some people realize that Palin has ONLY suggested teaching creationism ALONG WITH evolution, even though she says that every time the subject comes up.

We all know that we can't be sure how we got here, that's why evolution is a THEORY, as is 'big bang' AND creationism...Why not offer ALL theories?...Are the libs afraid that people will be permitted to make up their own minds about our existance?

We don't know for a FACT how we got here, just as we don't know for a FACT where we're going when we die...Would they want all people to be taught that we go to one specific place when we die, without considering ANY other alternatives?...Heaven, h**l, complete cessation of existence, reincarnation, we explore ALL possibilities...Why not explore possibilities of how we came to be?

BTW, for those who keep saying that Palin doesn't believe in evolution...That's FALSE...One of our alternative theories combines creationism WITH evolution, that theory says that people were created by a higher power (intelligent or deliberate design), then evolution changed us over time...There's also the 'old earth' theory:

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

It doesn't make sense to teach only ONE theory about ANY subject, when we can't possibly know the FACTS about it...There's absolutely nothing wrong with expanding your mind...How did liberals become so closed-minded and intolerant of other peoples' views and beliefs?

@Dude: Here's something interesting, and somewhat 'scientific' for you to consider:

According to creationism, man was created from dirt...Every single element found in the human body (iron, zinc, magnesium, etcetera) is also found in dirt...There is absolutely NO way that anyone could have known that at the time the bible was written

Answer 15

I guess I am one of those people that does not have a problem with either.

When I was a child I saw the world in a certain way -guided by my thought process's and the knowledge of a child that I had gained. The same can be said about Biblical history. Now that I am an older woman I may not see the world exactly in the same simple child like way .

How ever this does not mean that the sheer act of Creation is some how solved . Growing up does not diminish the wonder and mystery of Creation. In fact knowing more about Science (such as Astronomy ) with a back ground of Biblical knowledge has actually deepened a faith with in myself that I could not have imagined even 10 years ago when I was an agnostic .  

Answer 16

Because creationsim is based on religion and not all people subscribe to the same religion.  As an atheist, I would think that learning about creationism would be about as worthwhile as learning about 8-track players.

Answer 17

Two reasons:

- Creationism is not science (it can predict nothing), and thus has no place in any curriculum purporting to be about science.

- Evolution is a proven fact.  Therefore, any claim that it is incorrect or insufficient is automatically wrong, and need not be discussed except for pedagogical purposes.

Answer 18

Because Creationism is not based on science and Darwin's theory is

Answer 19

I agree with you.

Answer 20

Creationism is not science, it is a religious dogma. Because it is religious, it cannot be taught in a secular school. It's that whole "separation of church and state" thing.

Besides, why not teach astrology? Why not teach that as a counter to astronomy? How about alchemy? Why not teach the philosopher's stone is a real thing when discussing the value of a mole?

They are not taught in school because they are false. Creationism falls into the category of alchemy and astrology and on that basis alone it does not belong in the classroom.

  

Answer 21

i don't know the answer but it's a good argument for school vouchers so our parents can send us to the school of choice. it's funny how the majority of people believe in a god but somehow our democracy rules by the minority's  wishes. maybe we can CHANGE  that? let's  ask Obama.