0
Are atheists for or against the teaching of creationism v evolution?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
'Atheists' are a general grouping, not a specific one.
- Many have no opinion on the subject, and allow expert opinions to weigh the matter on their behalf.
- Some refuse the admission of creationism in public education as science (although private education may do what it pleases) because it is inherently unscientific and in many places, illegal to do so. Evolution is accepted because of its scientific support.
- Others make acceptance for creationism taught in religious classes, which is fair enough.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is Anti-Evolution?
Any person or organization that does not believe in the theory of evolution. However, apart from the theory of evolution there is also the evolutionary law that states that there is constant change in all things, which is different from saying that something evolved. Being anti-evolution may also contain the idea of one being actively opposed to something rather than merely not believing it or not knowing if it is really true of not. Some would say that it is synonymous with Anti-Science. Some lay people say that the facts of science are anti-evolution. This includes laws of science which are proven and have no known exceptions such as the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They believe the fossil record is also anti-evolution. Genetics and Biochemistry are also anti-evolution. There actually are some scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, who also acknowledge that certain existing facts contradict it, while they still hold to it's overall philosophy. There is among many creation scientists the agreement that microevolution exists. That is, that there are changes which occur within the various species, but it is contained within the genetic code for each species. These same scientists deny that macroevolution has ever occurred, because they maintain that there is no evidence of any species changing to another species, rather the evidence points to the sanctity of each of the species. Assigning of species is arbitrary, even as Charles Darwin remarked: "I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other...", therefore the disagreement that exists between Evolutionist & creationists is compounded. Regarding those who claim that anti-evolution is anti-science, this would have to be demonstrated as being against scientific procedure or to deny officially undisputed scientific conclusions. Then, in oder to be anti-science, it would have to be shown that all the attitudes and conclusions would be tantamount to being against all scientific endeavors. It is better to examine the issues, rather than to demean other scientific efforts. There should be an honest evaluation of these issues by both proponents of evolution and those who are creationists. Yet that can be problematic, because the final decision in examining the existing evidence is shaded by whether one believes the Biblical account of creation or man's explanation of evolution. If one chooses to hold to either particular philosophy, an attempt to give unbiased examination of the available evidence should be seen as the best scientific effort towards the truth. An anti-Evolution is a Pro-Creation
How did Simon Finch sort of go against the teaching of his Methodist religion?
The book talks about it in chapter one, on page 4 in my copy. It says that he made a lot of money, which goes against the Methodist belief of not "putting on gold and costly apparel." He also bought slaves, which is against their beliefs.
Is evolution blasphemy against God?
Absolutely not. Or, at least, it is not intended to be blasphemous. It is, however, very well possible that those who have a heartfelt belief in Creation perceive it as blashemous.Answer:The answer depends upon both the one presenting the theory of evolution, as well as the one hearing it.a) If the presenter makes no implication of non-existence of God, that would be one thing. But if he/she insinuates that evolution happened and took place by itself with no push or guidance or anything, certainly that is blasphemous at least by implication.b) If the listener accepts the view that evolution happened or could have happened through the agency of God, the listener would likely not see certain presentations of evolution as blasphemous. But if the listener believes in recent Creation, and/or in direct Creation of the species, most if not all presentations of evolution would be unacceptable or blasphemous.
Explain 1 Corinthian 6 verse 6-7?
What the word of God is teaching here is that a brother should not go against another brother in a court of law to have a judgment made against one or the other. Brothers in Christ should settle their differences between them outside the law of the land.
What did jesus emphasize in his early teaching?
if you mean at the age of 12 arguing about Judaism (what Christianity is based on) then about the symbolism and scarification Judaism had turned to, against god's wordI do not mean to offend the Jewish, yet that is what Jesus thought.Deep apologies if this is offensive to you
What positions did William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow each represent at the Scopes Trail?
Bryan represented the state which had a law against teaching evolution and believed totally the Bible account of the creation. Darrow was an atheist who was against the state law, defended evolution and Stokes's right to teach it.
Which two forces were set against each other in the scopes trail?
If you are refering to the Monkey Scopes trial then it would be evolution vs. creationism
Does creationism disprove adaptation?
Minor adaptations and changes, as can be observed in living things today, are of course not denied or disproved by Creationism. What Creationism does deny is the notion that Evolution could bring about new species or even new organs.See also:Is there evidence against Evolution?Can you show that God exists?Seeing God's wisdom
He Scopes Trial was controversial because?
He was teaching evolution in the south-just think about why American Southerners might be upset about teaching evolution. It was against their political and religious beliefs.
When was creationism done?
When Charles Hodge wrote "What is Darwinism?" in 1874 and argued that evolution can not explain the complexities of the eye is when creationism was first used as a tool against evolution. Before that, Thomas Aquinas and later William Paley used the design argument to 'prove' God's existence, as a small group in the United States are doing today, and the story of Creation was believed to be literally true by all Christian sects. However, it was not called 'Creationism' as there was no opposing theory at the time.
What percentage of students are confused between creationism and evolution?
That depends entirely on the level of education and the sort of educational institution.In normal universities, at least 64% of the biology majors are in favour of teaching evolution exclusively, meaning that some 36% are either confused or against the exclusive teaching of evolution.The paper linked below elaborates on these percentages.Note that none of this sheds any light on what these students believe personally. I could not find any definitive research on percentages acceptance/rejection among academic students.
Legal battle over teaching evolution that pitted modern science against fundamentalist religion?
its the monkey trial.
What is the Supreme Courts decision on teaching Evolution and Creationism in the classroom?
The teaching of creationism in public schools has stood trial a number of times. At least two of such cases came before the US Supreme Court: Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968; Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. In both instances, the US Supreme Court ruled against the statutes promoted by the creationist groupings concerned. In a number of other cases before district courts and federal courts, rulings were also against any statute that would require a religiously based modification to the biology curriculum, stating that such statutes are unconstitutional as they violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
In 1925 this case involved a Tennessee law against the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools?
Scopes trial
What are Arguments against intelligent design behind evolution?
Every argument against evolution falls into several categories. 1.) It could disprove something if it were true, but that something would not be evolution. 2.) There are no arguments for Intelligent design, all they have are arguments against evolution (and sometime plate tectonics, cosmology, mathematics's, or oceanography). 3.) Every single argument made against evolution or any other natural science in defence of intelligent design (also known as creationism as determined by a conservative Christian judge) has been used as an argument against intelligent design and backing up the science that the creationists are trying to ignore. Summary: Take any creationist claim, summarize it, and take the reverse of that and you get the scientific arguments against intelligent design and for evolution.
What did the Scopes Trial represent?
It represented the high water mark for creationism. People forget that Scopes was convicted of breaking the Tennessee law against teaching evolutionary theory. For tears after that the texts kept evolution of of biology. Not until the 60's was evolution brought back into biology texts and in 1987 the Supreme Court struck down all such laws as Unconstitutional. The Scopes trial represented the length ideologues would go to to suppress the truth about the world.
What or who was on trial in Tennessees monkey trial?
John T. Scopes. He was a high school biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee. He was accused of teaching evolution in class, which was against the law. He was convicted guilty, but released due to technicality.
