Poll: Americans support teaching of creationism
August 31st, 2005Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, according to the results of a poll released yesterday.
5 Responses to “Poll: Americans support teaching of creationism”
Alongside? I think not. Not in a public school. At least not in terms of giving equal weight to both (i.e. an evolution vs. creationism kinda thing).
However, I fully support discussing creationism or intelligent design, in addition to any other theories/possibilities on the origins of life; in fact, I think it could be quite beneficial to anyone, of any religion (or lack thereof), to at the very least be exposed to the different possibilities.
Along with the acknowledgement that “no one really KNOWS, for sure.”
: )
I think it’s natural for any kid, any person, to wonder, “Where did I come from?”
The church has an important role to play in this education process, also, and it is not obligated to provide the scientific viewpoint. I don’t think public schools should be required to do the opposite.
On a related note:
When I was in fifth grade (1975-76), I clearly remember my teacher, Miss Kull, mentioning the word “evolution.” She told us, however, that she could not say anything about the subject, or she would run the risk of being fired. Of course, even though she is a good Lutheran girl, she wouldn’t have dreamed of discussing creationism, either.
If you believe the Bible is true, then that means that evolution cannot be true. It would be wise to put the truth next to a lie and let people decide for themselves. I’m confident that the truth will ring true. Let’s not be ashamed of the truth as science and culture makes fun of us. The truth is still the truth. People always benefit from knowing it. It beats the alternative.
We need to be careful when using the terms “creationist” and “evolution.” Some people lump natural selection in with evolution and deny the existence of both. There are also many differing viewpoints on the creationist side (ie old earth vs. new earth). What is disturbing to me is the way some in the community of faith treat those with differing opinions on creation. Many say that belief in an old earth view of creation excludes one from belief in the Bible or God.
Christians have a poor history in dealing with scientific inquiry. Copernicus, Galileo, DaVinci, the list of those harassed and oppressed by those in religious power goes on and on. We can get so locked into a certain view of scripture that it hinders us from looking at other possibilities both in the scientific and philosophical/religious realm.
Well said, Joel!
: )
I’m not sure I could ever explain it, but I happen to believe that man descended from … something … AND that God created man. In my mind, both explanations can peacefully exist. I would never, ever, EVER presume to tell anyone that it had to be an “either/or” proposition, that if one theory was correct then the other theory could not possibly be correct.
“Anything’s possible.” — Jerry Seinfeld
As far as public school is concerned, I still believe the scientific course of study (evolution, natural selection) is the proper one to present.
>As far as public school is concerned, I still believe the scientific course of study (evolution, natural selection) is the proper one to present.
Science and faith don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Besides, Evolution is a faith - no more provable under the scientific method than Biblical Creation. So, don’t be intimidated by those that wave the banner of science and proceed to claim that certain Biblical texts are not scientific and instead, what they offer is ‘real’ science. After all, we are not merely guessing on our side, we have the Bible to go from. What does the other side have - other than ‘ever-evolving theories’ of man? Hey wait, maybe evolution is a reality!
I guess when it’s all said and done, I’m not comfortable knowing that we’re passing off lies to children just to appease some politically correct curriculum somewhere. The truth is worth sharing.