Originally posted by finnegan
change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [God designed] process of reproduction.
change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [natural] process of reproduction.
Creationism in this form presumably says that changes survive through God' ...[text shortened]... nge in the characteristics of a species, there is no particular difference in the two accounts.
So why not teach Creationism in schools?
Well it can be a part of religious education and presented as a religious belief so that is fine.
If it is included in a thorough account of evolutionary theory in biology, then to be historically accurate and objective about the way these theories developed, the theory of intelligent design could be presented as the prevailing theory prior to the publication of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which offered a thoroughly satisfactory and explanatory model of evolution supported by scientific evidence, which has indeed been strengthened in the subsequent century and a half of research, for example with the discovery of the gene, and demonstrated effectively for example in the rapid evolutionary changes found in viruses, leading to (and accounting for) resistance to antibiotics. Obviously a religious account would not have been the slightest assistance in dealing with drug resistant infections (for example). If this historically accurate and valid account were emphasised in schools, that would be desribed as anti-religious, despite it being accepted by most Christians outside of the fundamentalist sects that are especially prevalent in the USA for historical reasons which we might again choose to discuss, at the risk of being accused ... (etc in circles).
What would not be remotely credible, however, would be to present "Creation Science" as anything remotely resembling Science, because it operates in flat contradiction to the methods of Science. Again, a serious educational account of Creation Science would, of necessity, have to discuss the way Creation Science is funded, the widespread use of lies and misrepresentation, the fraudulent connection with evangelical capitalists who make significant fortunes from gullible believers, and the close connection with Right Wing political movements in the USA. All of this can be readily documented. To ask an education system to discuss Creation Science and not discuss its critics would be dishonest and contrary to the values of any self respecting education system. But of course, a balanced account would explain to the class that Creation Science is not representative of the firmly held views of the majority of informed Christians and their various Churches. Instead, it is part of a fundamentalist trend, especially in the USA, which is very modern and very much a reaction against the perceived threat of the modern world, an irrational fear given that most Americans for example proclaim that they remain Christians. Religious beliefs need to adapt to new knowledge about the world around us but it does not follow that this need entail an existential threat to religious faith as such. Instead, the role of faith can be made relevant and helpful by adapting to change and meeting the changing needs of the faithful, most of whom no longer require childish fables as a substitute for dealing with reality, the dark and their dreams.