Should creationism be taught in Fayette schools?

Tue, 10/28/2008 - 2:54pm
By: sniffles5

Should creationism (or "intelligent design") be taught as science in Fayette county high schools?

No, it should not.

What a silly question. Sticking out tongue

login to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 8:34am.

Having a bit of a background in spiritual matters, including philosophy, I'd have to say that Creationism should NOT be taught in our schools, unless and of course, if my Brain should think that it should.

Descartes once opined "I think, therefore I am." Sounds an awful like, "I am that I am," from Moses' dialogue with the burning Bush.

So, for me, whether its Jesus Christ or the Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't really matter, because none of this is happening anyway, . . . unless that it is, inside my Brain held in a bucket of fluid and connected to some alien computer. (Can you say "Matrix?")

But more importantly than this, is not only my search for the "am" in Who am I, its the ever pressing loss of time in making that journey. It seems that the older I get, the faster time seems to be passing me by. Like Sands in an Hour Glass, these are the Days of our Lives.

When do we ever really experience the "Moment?" Well, maybe a few times, when time seems to stand still. Your first love, the time yearning to be near her, the birth of your children, the many celebrated times of "existing" with my loved ones, and of course, when you get a chance to experience the "Big Bang", which I'm told in the French is described by words equating the meaning of "touching heaven". So, whenever I get a chance to touch heaven, which isn't near as often as I'd like, then I'm more in the present than at any other time, which for me, is life.

That should be taught in our Schools, unless it shouldn't be.
You can quote me on that, unless you don't.

Submitted by coachdon on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 7:56am.

Creationism failed completely in its legal attempt in Pennsylvania courts. It is not science in any way , shape, or manner. By the way the judge was a Bush appointee. If you want to teach creationism do in the newly created State Bible class

Submitted by cdl305 on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 12:31pm.

As most should have learned in school, scientific method teaches us to make a hypothethis, test the hypothesis and then draw conclusions. From this we reach the best fit to explain our observations. They are not always correct (spontaneous generation for example), but subsequently scientific method is applied and we get a better fit. Current science supports a universe in excess of 10 billion years of age and and an earth in excess of 4 billion years, both of which are slightly more than ~6000 years of creationism. Since the foundation of creationism currently appears flawed, we should teach our children the best theory, which is currently evolution, until scientific method moves us to teach new science.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 5:19am.

the concept of balancing a checkbook. Perhaps then, when these young ones grow-up and become productive members of society, they can make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Submitted by hi grover on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 5:46am.

simple arithmateic and also reading comprehension. i have a hunch Fayette county schools would not be in the financial state it is in. I guess when you have people in charge that can't balance a check book, or read the writing on the wall you get this.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 9:06pm.

Well, we shouldn't just stop at teaching Christian creationism, so let's also include some of the other religions too.

Let's include the creator Xenu and his space planes that flew to earth to eradicate over-population by exploding people in ancient volcanoes to release their souls (thetans) into the universe, and the thetans eventually inhabiting humankind: Shocked


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 8:20am.

Some good friends of ours--a minister and his wife--wrote recently to say that they had visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky and enjoyed it. (And they seemed to think that we would also thrill to see saddled dinos.)

This place, of course, is the work of young earth creationist Ken Ham. Ham teaches that the Bible is the "history book of the universe," and so defends a particular and literal reading of Genesis in order to draw "scientific" conclusions.

While there, our friends attended a lecture by someone touted as "a Ph.D. from OSU." This guy presented a critique of "Intelligent Design" from a "creationist" standpoint, arguing that "Intelligent Design is compatible with the suggestion that the designer was an alien."

I don't know who he is, but he is right about this. But I would reply that this is a part of the charm of ID, properly understood.

One of the unfortunate features of the Dover, PA controversy is that wild-eyed fundamentalists attempted to hijack the concept of ID in order to smuggle their creationism into the schools with the result that the public perception is that there is no distinction between the two.

Michael Behe, for instance, acknowledges the solid evidence (genetic for instance) for common descent, and, so far as I can tell, this equates to theistic evolution.

But he argues that there are biological phenomena that defy gradualist Darwinian explanations and, in fact, have the appearance of having been designed. He would say, that the science can only take us to the point of recognizing design. If you think it was Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the science cannot say any different.

The issue in philosophy of science is whether design is, in principle, a valid explanatory concept. Neither Moses nor L. Ron Hubbard need be invoked.


"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Skeptical Sister's picture
Submitted by Skeptical Sister on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 10:15pm.

He created the universe after drinking heavily....his drunkeness is the cause of our flawed Earth. In his Heaven there are beer volcanoes and stripper factories.....Hell is pretty much the same except that the beer is stale and the strippers have VD. And.....he even created a behavior list for his followers, the Pastafarians, called "The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts".
And why should we stop at giving equal time to Creationism vs Evolution.....the Pastafarians also want equal time for Intelligent Falling vs Gravity! After's just a theory, right?

Submitted by Yo on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 6:17pm. long as EVERYONES version is included

Submitted by jeffro2000 on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 8:22am.

Natural selection explains the existence of every type of animal on this planet save one single species. There is a creature that defies natural selection. If natural selection (evolution) held true, this creature would have froze to death in the winter, as it was almost the only land dwelling mammal not to have a thick coat of fur, quite the opposite, it barely had any fur at all.

It would have starved to death because its jaws were to weak to tear raw meat and its stomach to weak to digest it.

This creature would have had a very high mortality rate due to its inability to defend itself from other predators as it had no fierce fangs or sharp claws to attack or stave off a hungry beast.

And surely, this creature should have died off a long time ago for the sole reason that, unlike other creatures when born, the size of its head at birth proved an enormously difficult and injury causing threat for the mother and the newborn animal.

This creature is the only one that directly defies natural selection, paradoxically evolving into a weaker and less naturally adapted animal than its predessesors, yet thriving in the process.

At some point this creature realized it was naked. At some point this creature realized it had emotions. At some point this creature tended the birth of its children. At some point this creature looked up to the heavens and saw heaven looking back, either with the burning and all seeing orange orb that punishes with drought and thirst, yet brings warmth in the morning and summer and spring, or the graceful and approachable orb of the night, waxing and waning and full, to remind us that yes, at one time we were part of the cycle of natural selection, as our Mother's still strum to the tune of the 28 day moon cycle.

But make no mistake about it. WE ARE NOT NATURAL. 15 million years of selection with fur, huge jaws and teeth, small brains, primate walking gait, all disappear in a period of time less than 10 percent in length, and we LOSE these selected traits? How did our brain double in size while we lost our fur, lost our strength, lost our digestive capacity, and lost our teeth.

We just "got" smart one day? There is one theory alone that could explain this that doesn't involve a higher presence. We would have had to evolve (ironically) cut off from the world. At some point our ancestors would have found themselves bound to a relatively small piece of land, probably a medium sized island, free of any large predators, but rich in self generating soft foods such as fruit and insects. Easy to eat and digest. In a tropical climate available year round. Its quite possible, if an island, that volcanic activity may have been present to give us a short lesson on fire and its uses. DNA testing shows that we all came from a group of roughly 5,000 (if I recall, see "Eve Project" on net) but not millions of years ago, rather a few 10s of thousands of years ago. And from that few, in a few thousand years we went to building skyscrapers and space shuttles.

I wonder if the island might have been a research facility for gene testing the local primates. Most perculiar, they have an opposable thumb, a great cardiovascular system for oxygen delivery... what would happen if we gave them some brain mass... Oh, we couldn't do that, they might think in a few thousand years that they were created by us instead of just evolving...

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 10:20am.

G.K. Chesterton makes a similar point eloquently in Everlasting Man. His aim is not so much to challenge evolutionary theory as to point out a qualitative difference between humans and other species.

For instance, of cave drawings that had been discovered, he observes that, whereas the earliest people conspired to draw stylized images of reindeer, the latter seem never to have thought to return the compliment.


"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Submitted by ograce on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 7:55am.

The fact that the question is asked should be a clue. The fact that most of the world believes it should as well. That it is opposed by sheer conjecture and speculation should be the answer, "Of course".

Submitted by USArmybrat on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 10:27pm.

Man, I hate to agree with you, Snif! My belief in intelligent design is my belief but I do NOT want my or anyone else's beliefs being taught as science in school. I believe that there is a Being that created this world and I can see, through observing nature, the evidence of this. But it isn't the same as how science would come to that conclusion. I recognize the subjective portion of my beliefs and that is not science. It has no place in our school's curriculum.

Submitted by boo boo on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 9:56pm.

Never Ever!!!!! Yep a silly question...

gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 3:55pm.

Not silly....just plain not too bright.

"and the politicians throwing stones...."
"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.