Five Short Reasons That Evolution Should Be Taught in Schools

Your as close minded as the rest of the evolutionist! Creationism is evolution. What the heck do think is going on right now? Evolution! And how did start? It was created! The science community just like creationist decide what is fact and what is not. Scientists definition of fact is: if it can\'t be be unproven it\'s a fact. Yet they can not disprove creationism.
Point by point:
1. Creationism is Scientific
Intelligent design is just as scientific. Evolutionist scientists have deceptively began propagating \"evolution science\" as a viable alternative to creationism. Lurking under this mask is the ever-present \"evolution\" doctrine of conservative science. And your lurking. There is much evidence to support creationism. You just choose to ignore it to support your own beliefs.
2. Evolution Does Not Promote Respect for Life
Evolution is one disaster scenario after another. Meteors crashing, volcanoes, Ice age, dinosaurs and many other species wiped out by evolution. The teaching of evolution does nothing to build a moral foundation for children. When creationism was removed from the schools illegally, the moral fabric of the family began to break down.
3. Evolution is religious
You must answer this question. Do you believe in evolution or creationism? You must believe in evolution just like creationism. If you believe then it IS religious.
4. Evolution Combats Prejudice
Evolution has little to do with combatting prejudice. It is society that breeds prejudice. And it will be society that changes it. Morality is and always will be subjective. Right and wrong will be subjected to the morality of it\'s society. An example would be the burning of adultrist women in another society. We wouldn\'t do that in our society or you get the death penalty. UMM? In an evolved society, we SAY are all related but we all work to ensure our continued peace and survival of our own kind. NAACP, KKK, Skinheads, WOW, USA, Iraq and on and on. NO society has the perfect melting pot. It\'s a shame but that\'s what it is.
5. Evolution Instills Responsibility (HA HA!)
Complacency has nothing to do with God! People do! The bible says we need to take care of others and our earth. Don\'t give opinions on things you know nothing about! It teaches that we are responsible for our behavior and the world to ensure a better life for future generations.
Shall I continue like this?
Before I waste any more of my time on your close minded rhetoric, I have a question you can\'t answer. It will always be a what (and for those that beleave a Who) question. WHAT created the earth and all that it has. Your answer would usually be \"the big bang.\" WHAT created the big bang? Your answer would be something like \"gases mixing together in space.\" WHAT made the gases? WHAT made space?
Do you get it?
For anything to be there must have been something that has always been. It can\'t be disproved so it must be a fact.

So who decided that I cannot be a religious believer and also believe that God set the stage for evolution? I do not see why science is considered antithetical to belief in God by some.

Healigan,

Far be it from me to deny you that! I'm not sure who decided, but I do know many are looked down upon for being religious believers who are convinced of the validity of biological evolution. Actually, my article "Is the Book of Genesis Historically Accurate" on Relijournal.com deals with that in a roundabout way.

Thanks for your comment!

Sincerely,

Chris A Sosa

I do not feel your article or your reply disrespectful. Nor did I intend to be disrespectful. It was only a direct response. Particularly to your remark "A small group of scientists with ulterior motives have deceptively began propagating "creation science" as a viable alternative to evolution. Lurking under this mask is the ever-present "creationism" doctrine of conservative Christianity." While this is true the same needs to be said about the general science community. Simply publishing their findings in one of their journals tends to make things a fact. There is very little chance that you or I can prove or disprove their findings. While I feel most are honest and forthright there is the lurking evolutionist doctrine of atheist. Much of this basically honest scientific knowledge has made it's way into the textbooks used in our schools. And I do believe it should be there. However one can not be taught without the other. Our young people need to be introduced to many different ideas and use their own thought processes to develop their own understanding of it. I have my own understanding of it just as you do and I feel we have given it a lot time and thought to develop that. Our youth need to do the same but we cannot teach just one side of it or we will have left them down. It will amount to nothing but propaganda.

I would like to thank Mac for being frank and to-the-point and debunked many of the \'science of evolution\'.

Mac, I am with you and I pray that one day you\'ll help these so called \'educated scientsists\' to accept the truth as it is. God bless you Mac!

To Mr Sosa, firstly let me say that we respect your opinion after having made your \'research\' and concluded that you \'could find any or enough \'evidence\' to support your search that eventually prove the creation theory.

Before I proceed let me tell that I am NOT a scientist, but having \'enough\' education to help me in search for a living. But I am also a God fearing man, with a good relationship with Him, who has given me this lile the very breath I am breathing.

You see, Mr Sosa, here the problem of science of evolutionist. They are usin or appling the WRONG LAW. For example: You CAN\'T prove God and how HE created the universe using \'scientific law\' or what I call \'physical law\'. God is spirit and only applying and understanding the Sprpitual Law\' can you understand. Nedither can you use \'Spiritual Law\' to prove things in the physical realm. It\'s that simple.

Yes, it\'s that simple. Why do you and thousands of other like-minded scientists try to disprove spiritual things using scientific law? What kind of people are they then? Are they \'smart\' enough in using DIRERRENT Law to disprove creationist science? Think about. Otherwise, don\'t waste your time.

By the way, by the grace of God, if you would like to know more about this Spiritual Law, you may contact me. I am very certain that you SEE the TRUTH. All it needs from your part is the SINCERE attitiude of your heart.

Roger,

I must disagree, respectfully, that the world operates under multiple completely non-related laws. I have no issue with one believing whatever they feel accurate regarding the origins of life and the universe. However, "creation science" does not wish to only establish origin but also disprove a vital scientific principal.

My reasons for disbelieving "creation science," as it is termed, are simply too numerous to outline here, but for a start they all hold Genesis at their focus. (Please see my article "Is the Book of Genesis Historically Accurate?" on Relijournal.com for an explanation.)

Thank you for your offer, but I must again reiterate: I have read the entire (Protestant) Bible and am a Christian. I have also pursued Christianity in an academic setting to further my knowledge of Christianity and the Bible.

Have an excellent day, and thanks for your comments (and offer)!

Sincerely,

Chris A Sosa

Brother Sosa,

Let me say that I DO NOT wish to debate with you, but one intersting thing you said about yourslef is that you said you are a "Christian"? You also said you have 'studied' the whole Protestant' Bible? Have you EVER wonder why you couldn't find the truth?

Don't get me wrong here, I am NOT going to judge you or have any prejudice against you. But the fact is there ARE millions of 'Christains' like this type all over the world. But they ONLY "Christain" and like you said a 'progressive' Christian...whatever that means. Brother Sosa, the POINT I'm trying to say is THIS: YOU fail to see the truth and answer is that you have NOT look at HOW good RELATIONSHIP is with GOD, throu His Son Christ Jesus.

And by the way, are you aware that the the very fact that you REFUSE to accept that there's a different law for 'physical world and Spiritual world' clearly expalians why ALL scientists FAIL to see the truth.

Brother Sosa, I can assure you that as long as you don't see it this way, you will NEVER see the truth of how the physical world operates and how the spiritual world operate.

Now the choice is yours...and I know that you have made it already. But I am praying for you, so that the spirit of deception will be broken and I pray that one day you will the TRUTH, which in Christ Jesus.


God bless, you brother.

Evolution should be taught in schools exclusively without the \'theory\' of intelligent design for several reasons. I partially agree with the points put forward by Sosa, but it\'s all down to interpretation. I prefer to just leave it as a good theory as to how homo sapiens sapiens came to be.

Intelligent design should not be taught in schools, because most importantly, it breaches the separation between church and state. Its fine for people to believe whatever they want, but this allows teachers, whatever there motive be, distort ideas. For example, if a teacher was to utterly ridicule the theory of creationism, it could begin to undermine someones faith. Conversely, if said teacher lauded it, and downplayed the theory of evolution, there words would affect the future response to future science.

I personally believe young earth creationism (acceptance that the earth is about 6000 years old) is absolute rubbish since there are too many anomalies for it to make sense (how does the fossil record and dinosaurs fit into this?).

However the idea that the universe was created by someone or something.That can\'t be disproven... at the moment. Never say never. We can never know for sure unless we push forward. However using the argument that since we can\'t disprove god, he must exist, is ridiculous.

I\'m reminded of the words of Bertrand Russell- Short version - If I believed in a teapot between earth and mars, that couldn\'t be detected by telescopes, by your reasoning it should be there, because it can\'t be proved that its not.

Long version - \"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.\"

James,

You raise some very good points. I actually first came across the "Teapot Argument" while reading the work of Richard Dawkins.

Thanks for your comments!

Sincerely,

Chris Sosa

Love the way you were able to bring the belief in a higher being, mine being God and what others may believe in, down to a mere teapot that we can\'t see. I do get your point.
I am not trying to prove or disprove God. I believe he is there and that is it.
But the theory of evolution is being taught as a fact. Students in high school and college are not well informed of the differences between a theory and a fact. This naivety of the student allows teachers to distort ideas. This puts the student in harms way of teachers that want you to accept evolution as the only way. Thus leading them to the conclusion that there cannot be a higher being. This perpetuates atheism. Again you cannot teach one theory without the other. The separation of church and state has been abused by the minority to instill their way of thinking. Atheist have have rallied behind this. Atheism is a religion. It is a faith that no higher being exists. The have used the court system to have their beliefs taught to our children.
I notice great fear by those that only perceive evolution as the only thing that should be taught. Are you afraid students might begin to reason and think for themselves. That they may discover that someone or something started all of this. Oh my gosh, they might not believe in science the way you or I perceive it at all! It is this different thinking that will push science further. Otherwise it will stop with what we\'ve got now. Some answers, but not enough. Even more questions.
I believe in evolution. But I believe God created it. Our time is different than God\'s. What was a week to Him may be thousands of years to us. Is it absolute rubbish since there are too many anomalies? Our evolution science as well as other sciences are riddled with anomalies. Have you actually tested the theories supporting creationism or evolution? Or did you choose one? Or maybe through your schooling your teacher swayed your naive young mind. I personally struggle with the \"young\" creationism theory but I never tested it. Nor have I tested any claims to evolution. I have had to assemble my own understanding of it. Merely claiming it as rubbish is close minded and \"would affect the future response to future science.\"
Has Bertrand Russell ever seen an atom? Atoms have not been seen but scientist insist they exist. And no, atomic telescopes aren\'t used to see atoms.
If God were a teapot I would be blessed to drink his tea.