Listening to you talk, there never was any reason for people to believe in a young earth. There never was any reason for people to think the world was flat! There never was any reason to make people think the sun went around the earth! Idiots! All of them! No reason at all! Morons! Stupidheads!

Of course there WAS reason THEN to believe those things, grasshopper. I've never said anything different. Please feel free to copy'n'paste any 'talk' of mine that leads you to your mistaken conclusion.

. . . can't find anything? What a surprise.

The operative word in your first sentence above is "WAS."

LONG AGO, there WAS reason to believe that the earth was flat.

LONG AGO, there WAS reason to believe that the sun orbited the earth.

LONG AGO, there WAS reason to believe in a relatively young earth.

And you know what? This is no longer the case today.

TODAY, we have overwhelming reason to believe that the earth is a sphere.

TODAY, we have overwhelming reason to believe that the earth orbits the sun.

TODAY, we have overwhelming reason to believe that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

I'm not calling the ancients' beliefs idiotic. I'm calling your beliefs idiotic. The Ancients had reason to believe what they believed. Their beliefs were based on the evidence of their culture's observations. Their beliefs were based on the evidence that they had available to them AT THE TIME.

Your beliefs are not similarly based. Your beliefs are based on your interpretation of the musings found in a book written 2-3 thousand years ago. Many of these beliefs fly in the face of the evidence that has been discovered in the intervening 2-3 millennia. To you, it's as if nothing new has been discovered about the world since Jesus was allegedly nailed to the cross. You IGNORE evidence that the Ancients never had and then arrogantly (and ignorantly) assume that they would do the same.

It's like believing that Ptolemy, if presented with the observations and theories of modern astronomy, would still insist that his view of the solar system was the correct one! Well, the plain truth is, Ptolemy almost certainly would NOT have reacted in that way because Ptolemy was a great thinker and to refuse to change one's opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence arrayed against that opinion is the mark of small-mindedness. Thinkers in the past were only evidence deprived in relation to today's thinkers; they were not small-minded.

It really is a bit shameful the way you here try to link your biased, provincial thinking with that of the Ancients.

Oh, and speaking, as I just was, of Jesus being nailed to the cross, given your conservative nature, surely it must occur to you that had you lived 2000 years ago in Palestine, you would have been a Pharisee and not a follower of Jesus. If given the opportunity, you would have helped nail Jesus to the cross.

. . . which is why I wrote "about" 4.5 billion years. This is not the kind of thing that we are likely to ever pin down to the day.

I intend this, of course, to stand in contrast to the incredible belief held by some Christians that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I just as easily could have written "a few billion years old" with no loss of intent.

Mr.X--

Sntjohnny and Maj have done a good job at attempting to get at the point of the thread.  You seem reluctant to answer the question.  Bad/Disproved theories are taught in science classrooms all the time.  Their weaknesses or shortcomings are demonstrated to the class.  Why couldn't this be done with "creationism?"  It's funny, no one ever feels that discussing the earlier earth-centered solar system model threatens the Copernican helio-centric one.  

So, I'll ask again: Why is it that evolutionists can't stand any alternative being taught in schools?

"Cogito has answered your question very clearly. You just won't accept his answer, so you pretend that he hasn't answered you."

That's silly.  He hasn't answered jack.  His answers had to be picked through to find out what he was insinuating.  And what he has insinuated has been answered.

"Creationism is not a scientific theory. He has asked you to explain why you think it is, but you don't seem able to do that."

This may be his objection, but it would take mind reading to figure that out.  To the extent that both Maj and I did, illustrating, for example, the point that it would be in large part the 'catastrophic' points of 'creationism' that would be mentioned, this objection has been met.

In fact, since Cogito has admitted that 'catastrophism' not only is scientific but also does already have access to the science classroom, and since Maj and I have already pointed out that this in itself forms a sizable chunk of the question, this particular argument is not merely answered, it is over.

"It should definitely not be taught as an alternative scientific theory, because it isn't one. It doesn't even qualify as a "bad theory", because it has to qualify as a "theory" in order to achieve that status."

This is probably why I'm actually tempted to not have 'creationism' taught in the schools at all.  Given that the people who set the curriculum are extremely biased in the first place, the odds that they could fairly represent the issues involved are very small.

I would not want Cogito to present 'creationist' claims because he doesn't even know what they are or what their basis is- as though they are hidden and obscure!  lol.  

"Educators shirk their duty to teach critical thinking."

I agree with this.  While on the one hand I see it as cowardice for atheists and evolutionary biologists to refuse even in principle to allow 'creationism' to be mentioned, to really dig into issues takes a fair bit of courage.  With the ACLU and Freedom from Religion Foundation running around suing districts for even the slightest hints of 'establishment of religion' I can see why it would be avoided.  

That said, I would settle for science teachers teaching science and restricting themselves to science.  There probably wouldn't be 'creationists' trying to insert their POV into science classrooms if evolutionists weren't trying to insert their philosophical naturalism into science classrooms.  Any science worth doing can be done in such a way to not presuppose anything at all about God or the supernatural.  

Evolution is not merely methodological naturalism.  It is philosophical naturalism in disguise.   Ie, religion.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. He has asked you to explain why you think it is, but you don't seem able to do that.

Well, evolution isn't a scientific theory either if you are going to define science the way it has been defined throughout history.  There is no problem in teaching that although it is just as unobservable and untestable as you claim the creationism is. But as sntjohnny mentioned, there are certainly elements or assumptions of "creationism" that are testable.

I think that creationism should be taught in the schools, and it should be addressed in science classes. It should be taught in social studies classes, because it is an important minority trend in American history and culture.

Minority trend??  Really???

It should be mentioned in science classes in order to explain to students why it is not considered a scientific theory. It should definitely not be taught as an alternative scientific theory, because it isn't one. It doesn't even qualify as a "bad theory", because it has to qualify as a "theory" in order to achieve that status.

What qualifies something as a theory?

The main reason that educators fear mentioning creationism at all in the curriculum is that its supporters want it to be taught as a viable alternative explanation of nature. They don't want students to think critically about their creation myth.

Hmm, sort of like evolutionists don't want students to think critically about their theory?  I don't say that to be tart, but to expose the double standard.  Again, I think evolution is pretty ridiculous, but I don't have a problem with kids being taught to think critically about it.  Nor do I object to thinking about creation critically.  That is actually why I prefer having other theories taught, otherwise it is just brainwashing.  If you are only teaching ONE possibility, you really aren't teaching kids to discern truth at all.  You are TELLING them what it is.

The subject is highly controversial, and many educators do not want to become embroiled in the nasty politics. This is part of why the American school curriculum has become so dumbed-down. Educators shirk their duty to teach critical thinking.

Amen, my friend.

"Sntjohnny has some unusual requirements for what counts as scientific validation in that he appears to believe that scientific theories can only be validated in controlled laboratory experiments."

This isn't exactly accurate.  It has always been my primary point that there is an epistemological difference between 'theories' that are validated via direct experimentation and observation in controlled and/or repeatable situations and inferences from data that are not derived in that fashion.  Call it 'science' or whatever you like, but don't gloss over or lie about the different epistemological basis that undergird whatever it is you have decided to label 'science.'

The secondary point is that what you call 'unusual requirements' are exactly what students learn in elementary school and high school.  Thus, when told that evolution is 'science' they think of what they were taught science was, and assume that evolution must have been verified in the same way.  Since not even those who go onto college get to take a battery of science courses to see what else gets thrown into the mix about what 'scientists' say about 'science,' most folks are left with a very misleading view of the issue.

Which brings up an important third point- why are the evolutionists dishonest?  Why is it so important that their view be labeled 'science'?  Or, if we granted that it can legitimately have that label, why are they afraid to point out the epistemological differences between certain theories... say gravity (the example of choice lately) and evolution?

These are legitimate concerns, and frankly, any scientist that is not even willing to concede that there is an epistemological difference is useless and should have his funding withdrawn.  Not because I want to suppress his point of view, but because he's an idiot.

Thanks, btw, for admitting that evolution cannot "be validated in controlled laboratory experiments." That'll help.

Copernicus:
"So it is really the predictive power of evolution theory that confirms it as scientifically valid."

Also Copernicus:
"Let's not forget that evolution depends on the serendipity of changes in the environment and random mutation."

Its not the 'predictive' power of evolution, its its 'explanatory' power.  As has often been said but completely ignored by thou, any part of evolution that is truly predictive fits within the creation model, as well.  All the controversial claims are not predictive at all.  And in terms of the 'explanatory' power, well, anything can be 'explained' if you are allowed to invoke the veil of a billion years and chance events.  oops.  I'm sorry...  I don't want to mischaracterize you...  I'll rephrase:  allowed to invoke "serendipity of changes in the environment and random mutation."

"Creationism, unfortunately, makes no predictions that we can verify through natural observation,"

Well, not true.  But this is just the ignorance talking, so we'll let it slide.  Did you forget to login as Cogito?  

"although one might expect that the fossil record would look differently than it does. (For example, there is no fossil record of a global flood.)"

More ignorance.  You have no basis for saying that it would look differently.  Have you performed or are you aware of any tests that have been made to determine proper expectations on the point?  Feel free to cite this material if you've got it.  Otherwise, what has been pointed out fairly frequently is that hydraulic sorting will be a significant player, and in case you are not familiar with the concept, try taking a walk along the seashore sometime.   Thus, the stratification of the fossils into layers, which the evolutionists take as being a record of evolutionary progression is perfectly consistent with creationist expectations.

Oh, but there is just one teeny-weeny difference:  hydraulic sorting can be done in the lab, in a controlled environment, and repeated over and over again.  Thus, we can actually derive some realistic expectations about what to expect in a catastrophic flood, and furthermore could make predictions from observed geological formations to what would happen in a similar scenario.

Seriously, Cop.  I understand that I have a certain obligation to present my argument, but you have an obligation to show that you've done a little legwork.  Checking out Talk Origins is not legwork.  That's strawman building.  There are a number of creationist sites out there.  Try educating yourself.  I beg you.

"Minimally, a scientific hypothesis must be a proposition that can be tested through naturalistic means."

Begs the question.

"Evolution theory has been verified through methodological naturalism. It is not, as sntjohnny gratuitously claims, philosophical naturalism in disguise."

Well, for the sake of argument let's allow that this is the case.  However, if we open up our high school text books, I'd wager that there is no caveat that says "through naturalistic means."  There is no caveat that says, "This theory was derived by assuming for the sake of operations that no supernatural interactions occurred."

Mine didn't, at least.  But let's assume it, and let's even assume its a perfectly reasonable position.  If so, however, it certainly deserves mention and examination and discussion.  So, taking this assumption as the one in play, let's restate the scenario:

"Actively precluding even the possibility of looking at the evidence and inferring that the best explanation will be non-natural, the following theory, "X" was derived."

Ok, but then the rational implication is:

"Given the above methodology, it follows that "X" may not actually be the best explanation of the data.  Nor can it be treated as argumentation against non-natural explanations, for as was just established, non-natural explanations are not even allowed on the table."

This is something that should be stated in the science classroom.  Naturally, it may incite the question, "But how does the data fare if we are allowed to put more possible interpretations on the table?"  To which, the science teacher may have to say, "I'm sorry, but we are not allowed to do that."

Thus, honesty has prevailed.  Students will understand that the question of life and its origins has been examined by precluding any non-natural explanations.  Ie, explanation by fiat.  And yet, no one could then turn around and show that life and its origins have been really proven to have been 'explained' by natural mechanisms in any non-trivial fashion.  How could it?  How can you ever say that 'natural mechanisms' are the best explanation for something when 'non-natural mechanisms' were excluded from the start?

It does not matter that you think the 'non-natural mechanisms' are spurious, by choosing not to even consider them as potential explanations you are unable to say whether the evidence supports one or the other, better.

But I am still not going to agree that even methodological naturalism precludes explanations that include agency.  Perhaps you don't either- but I make no distinction as to whether that agent is 'natural' or 'non-natural.'  Agents leave their mark, and science is permitted and able to detect them.  Choosing not to allow for the possibility of agency if the evidence suggests it may be 'science,' but it is not nearly in the same category as other areas of scientific inquiry.

And as a final note, I say all of these things taking for argument's sake that what is being proposed be evaluted is primarily 'supernatural interactions.'   We've made it quite clear that its the catastrophic elements of 'creationism' that we think ought to be mentioned, and by your argument "For example, there is no fossil record of a global flood" you admit that the proposition is as scientifically (by your definition, even) testable as other scientific explanations that have been offered.  

Thus, the obvious question is whether or not you have any empirical basis for that claim.  If you do, than you have shown that there is something to 'creationism' that can be evaluated in the science classroom, after all, and as such, the science teacher could proceed to knock it down.  I say that knowing that geologists for the last 2 centuries have not made their decision to reject the flood on experimentation, but rather on the adoption of a new assumption:  gradualism, uniformitism, etc.  

It seems to me that this assumption and any other that sits underneath any scientific theory is worthy of discussion in a science classroom.  And if scientists or science teachers should like to hide those assumptions or call their assumptions facts, or treat an inference with the same epistemological courtesy that they do of, say, a measurement of the speed of sound, than they need to be held accountable.  Checks and balances, baby.  If they're hiding something, they're hiding something.

Sorry, TheDoctor, but you are confused if you believe that the term 'abiogenesis' is used by scientists today to refer to theories of spontaneous generation.

This, from your own link:

Today [abiogenesis] is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).

Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

No scientist today believes that a complex living organism is 'spontaneously generated' from decaying organic substances. Clearly, then, this is NOT what science means by the term 'abiogenesis' in the 21st century.

To argue against 'abiogenesis' as if its meaning is the same as it was 2 centuries ago is at best disingenuous.

I disagree, ZZ.

LOL... of course you will.

Creationism is not a theory "the same as" the theory of evolution

Lets examine YOUR wisdom.

Creationism is a 'theory,' and a poor one, in the layman's sense of 'theory'; that is, it's "an assumption based on limited information."

Hmmm... interesting.  I will allow you to voice your beliefs at this point... for me, that is

The theory of evolution OTOH is a theory in the scientific sense of 'theory'; that is, it's "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

I think, believe, or whatever you WANT to TELL YOURSELF, that this is a real human thing..experience...reality... for all of us.  That is the reason why Christianity goes beyond the "I don't know" of scientific studies.  Christians are more free to examine...(insert your own word here)... the reasons and explanations of the why and reasons of life.  Thus, we are more "free" than you think... heck, wasn't there a thread at one time that tried to hook and sink us christians into thinking that we were sort of confined in our thinking??? Nah..lol... the only ones confined in this area are the athiests... and you, and they, confined yourselves into your own acceptances and understanding... a poor one I think!!

That's why I am asking the question, What are the similar set of statements or principles that 'creationism' comprises?

I thought you understood?...????? (forget this, just having fun with your thinking just as you do ours)

My question was and still is, What specifically would be taught as "Creationism"? There are creationist sites all over the web that stumble with the answer to that question. I'm surprised that no one yet has mimicked their answers (although I suspect that's coming just any minute now).

I won't bother to answer this.  These sites who you say cannot answer probly is due to you just not wanting to hear the other side.  OTOH, I already know that there are many sites which unsatisfactory are able to answer you wisdom...haha