Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[Gaunt]

Do you get it?

I do not. I've never been "given" knowledge before. Was it heavy? Did you have to unwrap it or anything before you could use it? What does Knowledge look like?

The existance of God is not subjective. It is absolute.

And yet you cannot give objective evidence for it.

The existance of the universe might not be a subjective opinion, but its being evidence of God is. Jim could look around and find absolutely no reason to think that any supernatural being have anything to do with the universe. This wouldn't prove God's inexistence any more than your seeing God's handiwork in creation proves that he does indeed exist, nor are these subjective views evidence either way.

Right. Objective evidence is scientific.

While scientific evidence is objective, the reverse is not necessarily true. I offered 2 additional methods for giving objective evidence, historical records of a God that cannot be explained via any other means but the supernatural or logical reasoning for belief in god. Neither of these are based on science, and yet could be considered objective evidence.

Since you admit that God is not scientific, whyever should he be in the science lab?

What about millions and millions of historical and present documented accounts from people who once held the belief that Jesus Christ is not God but then found out that He is? That's historical evidence that did not at first take God as a given but in the end concluded that He does exist.

Conversion testimonials do not count as evidence for the existance of God any more than deconversion is evidence that God does not exist.

Faith in God is a gift from Him

If faith is a gift from god, then obviously the reason I do not have it is because God has not deemed me worthy to receive it, no? Considering I would have to firmly believe in his existance to ask for it, this does not really seem to make sense.

Faith is not based on emotions and feelings.

What is it based on then? It is obviously not based on reason, which means it is not the same thing as "true" logic in the slightest.

[chrispalasz]

All the things that science can't explain are unexplained because science is the accumulation of human knowledge obtained through observations and tests.

Question for you: So if it is not possible to explain a certain phenomena through observations and tests, does that mean that this phenomena cannot exist?

Logic is using reasoning from known information to explain. Faith is just believing in something without requiring known information.

EXACTLY! You got it! That's exactly what logic is! The only problem is that your definition of faith is not correct. Faith is the knowledge of things not seen, and assurance of hope. Faith cannot be disputed. A Christian cannot lose their Faith in God. Not ever. It is knowledge. A Christian's faith exists because the Holy Spirit exists inside of us and testifies of God's existance, being in very nature God. Once the Holy Spirit has been given to you as a deposit, an assurance of salvation and truth in God's promises... there is no denying God. He exists as Jesus Christ, and the truth of that is not warped no matter how many clever arguments are thrown at it.

The problem is that I personally, nor can any Christian, GIVE you this truth. We don't own it. The truth IS God... and the truth COMES from God... and so to obtain it, you must go to God.

[chrispalasz]

Sorry, I made a mistake. I type fast and think fast... I should take the time to reread what I write. Here's my revision.

Question for you: So if it is not possible to explain a certain phenomena through observations and tests, does that mean that an explanation for this phenomena cannot exist?

[Lucifer]

Question for you: So if it is not possible to explain a certain phenomena through observations and tests, does that mean that an explanation for this phenomena cannot exist?

Well, I wouldn't contradict that, but if it contradicts with other known information that has been subjected to the same objective tests and observations, how can it be true? We make theoretical conceptions, based on what the idea could be behind something, but sometimes, we're not right because we don't consider the whole scope completely. But in this case, the information does not contradict--it just adds to our knowledge. As long as your explanation is reasonable and doesn't contradict with what we already know that has been supported, then it's alright.

EXACTLY! You got it! That's exactly what logic is! The only problem is that your definition of faith is not correct. Faith is the knowledge of things not seen, and assurance of hope. Faith cannot be disputed. A Christian cannot lose their Faith in God. Not ever. It is knowledge. A Christian's faith exists because the Holy Spirit exists inside of us and testifies of God's existance, being in very nature God. Once the Holy Spirit has been given to you as a deposit, an assurance of salvation and truth in God's promises... there is no denying God. He exists as Jesus Christ, and the truth of that is not warped no matter how many clever arguments are thrown at it.

Knowledge of things not seen? We can't see certain spectra of light, yet we know they exist, not through faith, but through science. We can't see gas, yet we know they exist, not out of faith, but through science again. If that's what you say of faith, why don't I just suggest that faith is believing a three-headed, four-horned, six-tentacled, six-tailed, six-armed creature with gold scales and blue fur exists? If you can say that of God, and all these things that we don't know, I might as well just make up something and believe it's true. So how do you know? Faith is disputable, on the basis that it isn't always correct, as it clashes with what we know from observation, and reasoning--in other words, science. Of course, that is to say that no one is stopping you from believing what you'd like to believe, but faith doesn't necessarily equate to truth. You can call faith knowledge, but knowledge can be false. Scientific knowledge can be false because even experiments and scientific journals are subjected to peer review. The only reason it's still logical and more sensical is because science is flexible, and it's knowledge can change, unlike religion. That's not to say that science is wishy-washy, it's that experiments could be subjected to human error, miscalculations, misunderstandings, or things unaccounted for that we never discovered or thought about. Eventually, we find out what those things are. Unfortunately, you haven't come back from the dead, so you can't seriously say you knew all that about the Holy Spirit. You're also implying in your last sentence, that you would just choose to ignore logical arguments in favor of something that comforts you. Fine by me, just don't tell me that it's going to happen to me because I think it's unlikely.

The problem is that I personally, nor can any Christian, GIVE you this truth. We don't own it. The truth IS God... and the truth COMES from God... and so to obtain it, you must go to God.

That just sounds like another excuse to avoid explaining something. If I thought that way, would I be giving you this much explanation for a few simple points? Maybe you don't have an explanation, so you try to hide behind this. Well obviously, I can see it's not working very well. You think we don't have the right to know the truth, and yet, science has found some truths. That's a contradiction.

[Gaunt]

knowledge can be false. Scientific knowledge can be false

While I agree with the vast majority of your post, these two points struck me as off. Knowledge cannot be false and still be knowledge. Truth is an inherant part of knowing (ie, you cannot "know" something that is false. You can, however, believe a falsehood.) Scientific interpretation may be false, but knowledge is not.

Of course, that is to say that no one is stopping you from believing what you'd like to believe, but faith doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

Hear hear

[Lucifer]

Whoops, wrong word. I meant information can be false.

[chrispalasz]

Of course, that is to say that no one is stopping you from believing what you'd like to believe, but faith doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

Ah, you are quite correct. Faith does not necessarily equate to truth. The key word here is "necessarily". Am I correct in saying that you admit it is possible in some circumstances for faith to equate to truth, then?

Let me necessarily tell you about equating faith to truth.

It depends completely on what you put your faith IN. The object (or source) of your faith must be 100% dependable. When you sit down on a chair, you have faith that it will hold you. When you take a plane ride, you have faith that it won't crash. These are demonstrations of faith that is placed in fallible things. If the chair holds you up, your faith equates to truth. If the plane does not crash, your faith equates to truth. If you have faith in God, your faith equates to truth. Now, you understand the first two elements of reasoning, so why the third? God is not fallible. He is immortal. He is perfect in every way. He is flawless. In putting your faith in Christ, you cannot be let down. There is no possibility of being let down.

This faith does necessarily equate to truth.

[Gaunt]

Am I correct in saying that you admit it is possible in some circumstances for faith to equate to truth, then?

Truth is independent of faith, and vice versa. One can exist without the other. If what is believed turns out to be true, then it may be nothing more than a lucky guess. If belief is justified and turns out to be true, we call that knowledge.

If you have faith in God, your faith equates to truth.

Possibly. That still does not make it knowledge unless you can justify that belief.

He is immortal. He is perfect in every way. He is flawless.

He is utterly unproven. He is unobservable objectively speaking. He possibly enjoys only a subjective existance.

This faith does necessarily equate to truth.

Even if it did, it would not make it knowledge.

If you cannot justify the belief objectively, what place does it have in a science classroom?

[Lucifer]

Ah, you are quite correct. Faith does not necessarily equate to truth. The key word here is "necessarily". Am I correct in saying that you admit it is possible in some circumstances for faith to equate to truth, then?

Let me necessarily tell you about equating faith to truth.

It depends completely on what you put your faith IN. The object (or source) of your faith must be 100% dependable. When you sit down on a chair, you have faith that it will hold you. When you take a plane ride, you have faith that it won't crash. These are demonstrations of faith that is placed in fallible things. If the chair holds you up, your faith equates to truth. If the plane does not crash, your faith equates to truth. If you have faith in God, your faith equates to truth. Now, you understand the first two elements of reasoning, so why the third? God is not fallible. He is immortal. He is perfect in every way. He is flawless. In putting your faith in Christ, you cannot be let down. There is no possibility of being let down.

This faith does necessarily equate to truth.

You obviously assume that I trust the things I touch or use, do you? I don't trust people. I don't trust the chair. I don't believe the chair is necessarily safe, and I don't pretend it is because I know it can be unsafe. However, I sit in it because I have no other choice; either that or I get tired of standing and collapse. Same goes with the plane; if I need to go somewhere far away, I don't have a choice--I have to use the plane, knowing that there is a possibility that it will crash. I don't like to presume I see everything as it is, just as I won't trust the random advertisement that randomly appears in my e-mail. You presume that I trust too much, and frankly, I don't. So you think putting faith in an immortal being automatically makes you satisfied? I don't see the reasoning, seeing that immortal is not forgiving, kind or having mercy. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

[chrispalasz]

I don't trust the chair. I don't believe the chair is necessarily safe, and I don't pretend it is because I know it can be unsafe. However, I sit in it because I have no other choice; either that or I get tired of standing and collapse. Same goes with the plane; if I need to go somewhere far away, I don't have a choice--I have to use the plane, knowing that there is a possibility that it will crash. I don't like to presume I see everything as it is, just as I won't trust the random advertisement that randomly appears in my e-mail. You presume that I trust too much, and frankly, I don't. So you think putting faith in an immortal being automatically makes you satisfied? I don't see the reasoning, seeing that immortal is not forgiving, kind or having mercy. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

Frankly... I don't believe you. If you're actions don't reflect whether or not you "trust" something... what does reflect your trust? What things do you trust?

I don't believe you at all. Whether or not you or anyone else chooses to admit it... our actions fully reflect our deepest held beliefs. Are you married? Regardless, let's say you are. Would your wife believe you if you kept saying "I love you" to her... but you never remembered her birthday, never slept with her, never gaver her your time? No. That's because that's a junk statement.

If I say I'm against killing animals in every extreme case, yet I eat meat every day, that doesn't JUST make my statement hypocritical, it makes me a liar.

Besides, the only two options in life are NOT sitting in a chair vs standing. Try sitting on the floor if you don't trust chairs. And if you even try to make an argument that you don't trust the ground to sit on it... I don't think you are among the people I should be having this discussion with.

Many people in East Asia sit on the floor. That's why they have low tables and sit cross-legged.