Modern Materialistic Science is the worst when it comes to banning "dangerous ideas"
And there is good reason for this.
Imagine sitting there in your chair, looking at a modern science book and deciding whether to toss it or use it as a door stop.
That is life changing. You spent so much of your life learning and understanding what you thought was truth.
And, via new evidence, you find it is all completely wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but wholly wrong. Wrong at its premise. Wrong because of one evil experiment, that was barely an experiment, but was forced onto the scientific community long ago.
So, what do we do about this?
Why don't we teach creationism and evolutionism so every kid has somewhere to start learning from?
Why do we teach evolutionism so thoroughly and never bring up any of its glaring holes?
The only reason is that this is a world of propaganda.
Its all about programming.
And the upvoters have made sure that they are the only upvoters and none can question them.
How exactly do you "teach creationism".
I mean you don't need to fill many pages in order to say "a god might have just made everything so there's really no point in trying to figure out exactly how".
Creationism is a philosophy, a world view.
And there is far more to say about it. About our relationship to it. And what those things mean / might mean to us.
So, in the Christian mythos God created us in the garden of Eden, then Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus much of humanities woes came about in that one "original sin".
These few words denotes a world view, a relationship with the universe.
Evolutionism could be summed up:
"god doesn't exist, so long ago a single cell organism formed, and then humans evolved from apes"
But we don't stop there, we go into why and how we think all of these things came about.
In other words, we tell a story about our relationship with the universe.
And, as you stated here in this post, if we give lots of time to one, and not the other, then the one must be the correct view. Or, at least its the view that gets the most airtime in our heads.
BTW neither Creationism nor Evolutionism has many facts supporting it.
They are both mostly conjecture.
Hold on, full-stop.
How do you make the astronomical leap from "creationism" to "christian god"?
I mean, I hope you're aware that there are literally thousands of different creator gods with roughly exactly the same quality of supporting documentation. And really, for all we know, it could have been any of them or any combination of them perhaps even inadvertently cooperating.
It is demonstrable that Christian theology is derived from Sumer and Akkadian Theology, as modified by the Babylonians. We have their earlier holy texts, from which Genesis is lifted wholesale.
Yup.
The problem is the word is muddied.
Creationism:
When we see Christians arguing about Creationism being taught in school, they are referring to the Christian creation mythos.
Goddess! I would love a class that just went through all the creation myths.
Christian, Hopi, Hindu... and even Mormon.
Now, that would be a class to take!
The universe is a life creation machine.
We will find life throughout our galaxy and all of it has DNA.
The revelations we are about to find will pretty much destroy our views of Creationism and Evolutionism. (the Big Bang... gone too)
We have been worrying about the loss of species. (mostly because the TV blames in on man)
What we will witness is the birth of new species.
We will also see the birth of a new galaxy.
And it will put paid to the idea that it was an explosion and then coalescing.
Before he died, Joseph Campbell created a series of lectures and a text 'Transformations of Myth Through Time', which was taught as an Anthropology class in a community college in Portland, OR back in the day.
There are notable stages of a heroes journey that feature in almost all mythic traditions, from the Hopi to the Norse.
I'm a big fan of "The Power of Myth".
ME TOO!!
NANABOZHO FOR THE WIN!
I'm not sure about that.
I saw a documentary that interviewed the creationist advocate who injected it into school curriculum and he insisted repeatedly that there were no religious references whatsoever.
Ok, it was "Intelligent Design" (DEISM).
Full documentary,
Ok, so, "not science"?
Perhaps it should be taught alongside other philosophies and world views (and formal logic).
I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Take this one fact
What does that do to timeline of primordial ooze → dinosaurs → apes → humans?
What we consider "science" in anthropology is we take a bunch of still frames of a movie and we arrange them to a world view.
These people work with assumptions about time.
And people buy it. "This thing was dated to 5000 BC"
When the dating method is completely flawed and based on circular reasoning.
So, we just assume dinosaurs were from long long ago, because that is the current story, when it is more factual to say that dinosaurs were around during the times of "King Arthur"
The tales of knights fighting dragons. Far more plausible when you think of them as dinosaurs.
And there have been many cataclysms that have wiped out almost all traces before the 3rd advanced human civilization back. So, that leaves what we are looking at as fairly recent history.
Add to that, that most of our "history" was made up, and we are probably only in year 1300 AD.
So, Evolutionism has a LOT of holes in it that are obfuscated to continue a world view.
As you say, a philosophy... or maybe a religion.
All ancient historical claims are unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Evolution has practical predictive power and demonstrable efficacy.
It may not be "fact" but it is certainly a very useful hypothesis.
For example, there are remarkable physiological similarities between fish and humans.
In 55 minutes,
And those similarities are a key to what is really happening!
But we get misguided when we try to put them all in a tree thinking we have common ancestors.
What is absolutely frightening in Anthropology is that they compare human skeletons to what are supposed to be proto-humans (actually chimpanzees) skeletons. And there is so many differences that it boggles the mind that one could get to the other.
such as pyramid chest -> barrel chest
muscle connected shoulder → rotator cuff shoulder
etc.
Like i said, we will see the appearance of new species.
And then we will get rid of the idea that everything is a single tree and a single timeline.
And then we will start to look into some serious woo-woo about what makes a creature turn from an egg into what they are.
It will be interesting
www.macroevolution.net
Evolutionism could be summed up:
"so long ago a single cell organism formed, and then humans evolved from apes"
There is absolutely no reference to any "god(s)" in scientific textbooks.
EXACTLY.
I'm ever so glad we can agree on this point.
The Theory of Evolution is a collection of HYPOTHESES that have proven efficacy in predicting the location of fossilized animal remains.
It is NOT (strictly speaking) a REAL-TRUE-FACT (apodictic truth). And it is technically unfalsifiable (which is not a good thing).
Creationism on the other hand is a single HYPOTHESIS with zero efficacy and not even a faint promise of real-world predictive power.
Some may find it comforting, but it would seem to fall into the realm of philosophy and NOT science.