TED Conversations

Bernard White


This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

I started this debate, with a new aspect (or perspective) on our current education problem. Considering many focus on how to motivate students and various other aspects. Yet this (creationism) still remains a big problem to the American education system today, and I don't think many people think about this when they consider the education system today.

I feel I should have probably made this clearer, when I say creationism, I am making reference to the type of creationism which tell people "Evolution is wrong". (Or in other words the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate).

Creationism - http://www.creationism.org/
Does it have any credibility to it? Should it be considered a science?
Considering due to recent polls 46% of American believe in creationism.
Link :
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Many psychological studies have shown a strong correlation between a lack of education and creationism. These studies indicate that not many creationists actually understand what the scientific method is.
With all this talk of how to "improve education" surely it would be wise, to finally finish the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate, if we wish to ensure a better scientific education!
Watch this 3 minute link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo (By Lawrence Krauss)

Here are some reasons, people believe creationism should be taught in schools, which I believe are false :
Considering, if the polls are to be believed, 46% of Americans are missing out (in my opinion) on a proper scientific education.

I think it is worth mentioning though, that I am fine with "Theistic evolution".
A good book recommendation on this matter is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller. I personally have never understood the claim "Atheism = Evolution"...


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 27 2013: In the role of developing computer science, Boolean algebra is fundamental. It is used in digital logic, programming, set theory and statistics.

    The values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively.

    In programming a program on whether "life exists in the universe" through Boolean logic, Either life exists in the cosmos, "life = true" or life does not exist in the cosmos, "Life = False"

    Running the program provides the simplest answer logically that can be made, Life in the universe = True.

    Coupled with the only scientific result of Boolean Logic afforded the question about creation, the only verifiable explanation is Scientific Creation which returns a true, Religious creation and Natural Origins both return a false variable in the program.

    Adding to the program the variables of discovery of other planets that circle stars and the immense number of stars in the universe and the fact that life has been shown to be able to advance scientifically to the point of space flight, the number one reason that other life exists in the cosmos other than just on planet Earth, is that of lineage and far outweighs any evidence of life originating by natural means, evolving and arising in the cosmos or by a non-existent variable of a divine being.

    In other words, Everywhere man goes, he spreads life and with the advent of synthetic biology, man can eventually spread life into the cosmos beyond that of our humble planet and this method of life shows a positive influence on life in the cosmos where the stance of natural origins still can not be calculated without any sort of evidence to life arising by natural means. The program can NOT account for the code of life arising. In computer programming, code has never been found to "self-create" so the logic behind Natural Origins still stands at Nil.

    No 'scientific' variable can be input for a divine being for lack of "ANY" verifiable evidence.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.