I do see your "light" and I agree with you in some areas. I think that kids are indoctrinated into one view of the origins/life/universe origination. I think creationism/intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution and that problems with the evolutionary theory should be taught as well. Believing in evolution or not believing doesn't affect ones life outside of their worldview. As a future medical working my belief in creationism and disbelief in evolution will not affect my medical knowledge or my ability to do my job. I think kids have the right to be educated on all sides of the issue and make opinions for themselves instead of being indoctrinated into one theory that has many holes that go ignored.

The greatest mistake that the industrialized world made was believing that there was a difference between science and religion. In ancient times science and religion were one in the same, a path to universal truth. Many myths and stories were actually metaphors for complex ideas, because that's how our minds naturally work, before the gradual industrialization of the world, the human mind was mostly controlled by the right side of the brain, the side that controls creativity. So we naturally think in symbols and metaphors.

For example the concept of PEMDAS, which is an acronym that represents the order of operations. Parentheses, Exponent, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction, or also known as Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally. But how many people in the world remembers the former after HS? Not a lot. But they will remember, Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally.

This is the same for stories and myths, there was truth and meaning behind them, but as time goes on, the truth becomes loss to us, and they just become stories. Take the Egyptians for example, they had several different creation myths, but they were all accepted by Egyptians, even though they contradicted one another, because the story wasn't important, it was the message that was being conveyed that mattered, it was the same with the Greeks. The story of Rapunzel, as it is told now is a common fairytale that's told to children, but the original story was actually a detailed instruction on crop farming.

This whole persecution of religion by the scientific community is nothing more than an act of vanity and ignorance by the secular world. And this creationist concept is an attempt by the religious to maintain their traditions, and continue the worship of what they do not understand.

I personally find the Greek mythology of hubris is well suited for creationists, whereas the scientific community is more "down to Earth" when proclaiming scientific explanations are just "theories" that need constant scientific peer reviews.

How can you even make that bold claim? When well over 98% of the human DNA are known as "junk DNA", AKA non-coding DNA that "influences the behavior of the genes". Therefore "genetic engineering is unsuitable for commercial application. It is still at a stage of early experimentation with very incomplete understanding about its consequences. According to the ethical standards of sound science, the products of such experimentation should be strictly contained in labortories, especially as released DNA may spread indefinitely in an uncontrollable way."(citation)

Furthermore, when there are beneficial mutations in humans, who are you to say that every mutations are bad due to "corrupted"/influenced information? While even those with mutation that caused autism can be beneficial for humanity.

Plain and simple if i meet this God then i may believe in creationism! My money is on evolution, you want to go to a Religious school that fine by me This creationism taught in a government school most school teacher can't even handle more then one subject, if that. My mistake 2 +2 =3 give Johny C for getting close.

If we are going to teach students creationism in schools, please teach all of the other religions, including the flying spaghetti monster. /sarcasm

I personally think it's good to teach students about all of the perspectives on how we were first made. But the fact remains; religion is based on ludicrous facts (IMHO) but evolution is based on consistent repeated experimental results. It may not have been observed directly, but all the things point to this scientific theory.

I believe we should teach evolution in school, and creationism in church.

I know this is totally irrelevant, but I am an agnostic. I think I may be biased about this subject, however, I think I am pretty fair?

Good point.

Religious people can't even agree on their fairy tale for creation. Go reach consensus first, then we can pretend to be talking.

Evolution is the theory least exposed to attack and intelligent design is like a bottom feeder theory within the same category.

Regardless of which story or theory of the origin of life gets taught, I've always felt it is far more important to educate children to be able to gather, research & analyze information, in order to make their own decisions & establish their own beliefs for adulthood. They need to be encouraged to exercise their curiosity, imagination, & creativity. but then I've said this all before somewhere... plz excuse my repetition. ( As a Christian, I've offered my kids the variations on creation, but even the Christian Bible sites the importance of the personal decision to believe, it is a choice.)

Now pardon me, but there is nothing to analyse about creationism. There are statements, true, but there is no traceable process behind said statements that would yield the same results each and every time it is applied. Mary was a virgin, and she had given birth. How? She was special. God made her remain a virgin. And so on and so forth. How am I to understand, then, how this whole virgin birth thing works? How am I to analyse any statement beyond the statement itself? What is the width of Metatron's wings? 10 metres. How did you reach that number? Scripture told me! There is no dialogue.

I'm really reluctant to take up this argument. I weary of constantly explaining myself to those who might ask, w/o interest in hearing an answer, & merely ask rhetorically.
I'm a believer who tends to read the Bible, not as literal & absolute truths, but as representational & metaphorical writing.
Virgin birth? Scientifically speaking there are worms (& several other living things) that have both sexual genders, male & female. In the absence of a mate, they reproduce by themselves. I don't know this is what happened, & I don't know it isn't. There may well be some similar &! scientific explanation for what the limited knowledge & understanding of the people writing & reading in Biblical times chose in ignorance to call Virgin birth.
[ I will ignore all accusations of sacrilege.]

What may not be explained in specific detail, either in the Bible or the high school Biology textbook, is not by its omission proof of something being false, or untrue. We don't yet know all detailed specifics about black holes or quantum physics, but I do not declare that as proof of their non-existence.
It would seem you have chosen to utilize your analytical abilities to decide the virgin birth is bogus. I'm grateful to debate someone willing to think for himself.
For clarification in future, if your comments or responses are posed ( to me) rhetorically, would you plz note it for me? Thnx!

As in, you will ignore me if I go on to say that she, well had a bit of 'fun'? If so, then really that proves my point for now. Ignore the following if I have made an erroneous assumption in my previous sentence: If you are entirely unwilling to even entertain the thought that Mary may have had sexual relations, then making sense of what observation and analysis yielded will be very difficult.



Yes, however, the use of Occam's Razor makes virgin birth a rather low-ranked option. There really is no reason to accept virgin birth when there are other, more plausible explanations, more plausible scenarios. Firstly, there is no biological means through which members of our species could switch gender or impregnate themselves and the situation was almost certainly the same in biblical times. There were, at the time, no techniques or procedures to preserve the biological state associated with female virginity. In light of this, one claim appears to be false, either that she gave birth or that she was a virgin.

Sure, we could produce an explanation with an elaborate explanation with rare genetic defects and hereditary whatnot, for example, but there is no reason not to accept the less elaborate and complicated scenario as more plausible. People lie all the time, there is nothing special about it, but people are hardly born with conditions that would allow them to give birth and remain virgins. If a chair was gone and you asked me where it is, which answer would you prioritise? That a phoenix took off with it, or that it is in another room?



Well, they're rethorical questions, so they weren't really posed to anyone, they were merely demonstrative.

If you want religion go to private school.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." -#1

Believe what you want, but its against the constitution to teach it . If for some bullshit reason were did teach creationism then I would demand that all types of it would taught, and not just the christian version.