CreateDebate


Debate Info

52
103
Yes No
Debate Score:155
Arguments:70
Total Votes:221
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (24)
 
 No (45)

Debate Creator

Kaira(54) pic



Should creationism be taught in science classes in public schools?

Educational or not?
Inspired by the new movie Expelled (www.expelledthemovie.com)

Yes

Side Score: 52
VS.

No

Side Score: 103
1 point

Creationism should be taught in science class so it can be shown that it is not based on facts and testable hypotheses. Once students understand the scientific method, it shouldn't be hard to show that Creationism is not science. A discussion of the differences between creationism and scientific theories is useful to prepare students for debates about the two options.

Side: Yes
2 points

I most certainly agree - Creationism is an excellent way of showing kids exactly what science isn't supposed to be. No extended period of time is needed to teach the kids Creationism or to show them how incredibly unscientific it is - it's not exactly a very deep theory.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
2 points

I assume that by Creationism you mean Religious mythologies. There are about 12 000 known religions each one of them has it's own myth of creation.

For example, should be my kids taught how some African god was floating in water and then he puked out whole world as an alternative to Physics?

Or how first human came out from Odin's forehead as an alternative to biology?

Side: No
geoff(738) Disputed
1 point

There is nothing to teach, there is no debate, there is no controversy. Scientific methodology should be taught in science. Creationism is a non-study. It may be beneficial to apprise students of the noise so-called creationists make but this should soak up time in another subject - media studies perhaps.

Side: No
CaptFothel(8) Clarified
1 point

For such an idea to work a strict list must be made of real science texts that use science, the scientific method, and approach the dilemma without bias. No school should be able to deviate from this list, lest we find propaganda in place of science text (On Pandas and People and its comrades in biased, fallacious lies would be appropriately seated somewhere not on this list of science texts). If not implemented, creationist lies would become the norm of a classroom setting, and the kids would not learn to differentiate science and dogmatic beliefs and instead learn to cling to holy scripture and demand inappropriate amounts of evidence for anything not stated in the bible, whilst holding the flaming double standard of "Our argument is proven by faith; we can't believe you until you explain the entire universe, the meaning of life, and prove that there is no God in any form whatsoever".

Side: Yes

Yes. people need to be exposed to the truth, using the word of God. Inspired by God.

Side: yes
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
3 points

1-The Bible is not truth unless you can prove it. Thusly, it is not "the truth".

2-This has no place in a science class, it's better kept for Sunday school or youth group.

Side: No
CaptFothel(8) Disputed
1 point

Assumption: God wrote the Bible. Supporting statement: God wrote the Bible. If God wrote the Bible, then God wrote the Bible. Fallacious argument. This argument is an assumption that is unproven, unprovable, and impossible to disprove. Such is the opposite of science, logic, and competent thought. This is truly laughable.

Side: No
1 point

I believe the truth should be taught in Science class. I have nothing wrong with Science being taught in SCIENCE class, but when it comes down to it, there is too many gaps with the theories of Evolution. Too many impossibilities for the evolutionary process to occur no matter the amount of time. Just look at your body. How fearly perfectly made you are. Understand how complex our body works. Lets just take something like the eye for example. there are far more individual specific then your figure print. Theres only 1 and 10 to the 75th power of a chance that you would find someone with the same irises as you. We have dim, night, and peripheral vision in the rods of our eye. It is just amazing how we are perfectly made and that is just the eye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGpWW6scsg). Just look around you and see the artist's creation. I agree with you guys. Just because it is super natural they think it can not be taught. I can agree with the other side that Creationism is not science... ok well, Scientist have only observed the last phase of Evolution, Micro Evolutionary changes. No one has a problem with that we have changes, adaptations within these types of creatures. But it is crazy that science has extrapolated backwards on all of these other phases of evolution that had to have occurred and they say this is science and everything else is philosophical conjecture. Well, this isn’t science; this is also philosophical conjecture because these are Theories of Origins that we can’t duplicate in a laboratory anymore. This isn’t Scientific Method, indeed this is Philosophical conjecture also based on a naturalistic, materialistic progression over time.

Side: yes
1 point

Creationism should be taught in science classes. When i was in a Christian school there was evolution in the Christian text books. We learned to, that it was wrong for many reasons so why can't Creationism be taught in public schools.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Creationism should be taught in science classes. When i was in a Christian school there was evolution in the Christian text books. We learned to, that it was wrong for many reasons so why can't Creationism be taught in public schools.

Ah, that explains your blind spot towards science and critical thinking.

Side: No
1 point

both evolution and creationism are looking at the same evidence but presenting them in different ways if there is a reason that creationism should be put in a science class room is to show that you can present the same evidence in different ways depending on how you interpret the facts. if you take a polar bear from the wild and place it in a zoo in Africa will it die or will it adapt and change into another animal? will it stay the same and just adapt to the changes it is put through?

Side: Yes
2 points

the key misunderstanding is that science is not a presentation, it is a methodology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Side: No

I think as an alternative it should be along with evolution. The students can then ask plenty of questions.

Side: Yes
0 points

All right, I admit I started this debate just to hear what creationists should say. But since there don't seem to be many creationists on this site, I changed the settings. I think teachers should teach creationism as an example of a hypothesis that lacks evidence.

Side: Yes
RevFred(349) Disputed
0 points

There are plenty of examples that don't involve a god. Separation of church and state please.

Side: Yes
0 points

Creationism should not be taught as science in science classes. It should, however, be taught as an example of what the difference between science and pseudoscience is.

It is extremely important that students understand why scientific theories must be falsifiable, and what the difference between a theory and a fact is. Many creationists use the argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact (as if they are opposed to each other), and if people understand the very basic concept of science, which I believe is not taught well enough, then they would also understand why creationism is not science at all.

So creationism should only be used as an example of what is not science - if something is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is scientific. That is, creationism may be true, but it is certainly not science and can not be compared to evolution or used as an alternative to evolution.

Side: Yes
RevFred(349) Disputed
0 points

If science is taught well enough, then students will be able to figure this out for themselves. It has no place in our schools.

Side: No
-3 points
1 point

i totally agree with you!!!!! i am currently working on a ten page research paper for my senior english class and this is what i am doing it over. i dont understand why evolution is allowed to be taught in schools and creationism is not. it really makes no sense to me. so i chose to do my paper on just that. "if evolution can be taught in schools then creationism should be too!" so i totally agree with you!!!!

Side: yes
ledhead818(637) Disputed
1 point

From a constitutional standpoint it is not legal for schools to teach creationism. Under the establishment clause in the first amendment the government is not allowed to do anything that unnecessarily entangles the government with religion. If public schools are to teach an idea other than evolution, how do they choose. This choosing is what "unnecessarily entangles government with religion." You would have to teach every religion's different creationist ideas, and the whole selection process entangles government with religion.

From a scientific standpoint it is not science and it has no place in a science class. Science class is not for disproving unscientific ideas, it is for explaining the scientific method and commonly held scientific theories and explanations. And you still have the problem of entanglement if you propose teaching it outside of a science class. If a school offers a bible study class, it is wrong not to offer a Buddhism class or a Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster class. What if a student develops his own religion and wants that taught? That is why we limit education in public schools to things that have evidence.

Side: No
CaptFothel(8) Disputed
1 point

Tolerance and equal opportunity between people, people. Ideas are the products of people, products of people are not equal. It is not inappropriate to dislike Apple's computers, nor inappropriate to like Windows. Certainly if you heard the dumbest idea you have ever heard, it would not be immoral to tear the weak flimsy thing to shreds. To consider an unsupported claim and a scientific theory, the result of many peoples work over years and years of time, as being equal is an insult.

On the topic of anti-christianism (which is kind of impossible considering 85% of the US is Christian), it would not be intolerant to demand punishment for the vandalizing gays (for they vandalized and so they should be punished on the grounds of vandalizing and nothing else), but to state that the way gays are and were created is an unholy abomination that should be considered in no way equal to straight Christians is horribly intolerant. It is essentially punishing them for existing as God made them. Your group tries to act the victim, but you are the perpetrator, it is you who wants their religion taught in schools (science is not a religion, for it requires evidence not faith), it is you who wants gay marriage to be illegal because it disagrees with your religion, it is you persecute the gays because they are sinners according to your religion. You walk in screaming intolerance, and your religion is the source of most intolerance. Hypocritical society, how dare they attempt not to make your religion the state religion, how dare they call you bigots when the people you are persecuting are fighting back.

Side: No
rajpadalia(18) Disputed
0 points

Creationism/ Intelligent design is not science, it is faith based religion. It cant be taught in schools. If you want to learn it or want your children to learn it, teach it to them yourself and let them decide. The classroom however is not a place to preach religion. Creationism has not been proven using the scientific method, therefore it is not a real science. Evolution, although it has not been completely proven, it has greater acceptance than religion in classrooms due to the fact that it has a substantial amount of scientific evidence, much more than religion.

There is no hypothesis to prove in religion, its just faith and ideas.

Side: No
-5 points
ledhead818(637) Disputed
1 point

In science you cannot ever prove anything 100% right, that goes against scientific thinking. That is what makes science better than religion, it is open to change. Regardless evolution is one of the most widely held theories by scientists. Among every legitimate scientist who truly practices the scientific method, evolution is not a question.

Again what biblical account was proven right? Other than the moon creating its own light, the earth sitting on a pillar and being flat and things of that nature?

We are not saying that the government should say that religion is false, completely the opposite, we are saying the government should not say anything at all. Leave religious instruction to families if they want to make their kids believe in magical space gods. These things have no place in an institution of knowledge.

Side: No
rajpadalia(18) Disputed
0 points

"i do not believe that we should teach evolution as fact when it has never ever been proved right, whereas the biblical accounts of many things have been proven right over the years"

This my friend, is where you are 100% mistaken. Youre an idiot. Although the theory of evolution as a whole has not been made a scientific law, it has however been backed up by many studies. If evolution were all false, then it wouldnt exist as such a popular theory as it is today. The bible however is based on religion. Separation of Church and state is what is fair. If you insist on teaching both, then we might as well teach every damn religion out there, not just Christianity. The Bible, Torah, Quaran, Bhagvat Gita, ... ect has its place, not in a science class, but a theology or religious theory class.

Side: No
-2 points
CaptFothel(8) Disputed
1 point

You have approached the dilemma with bias, this is quite contrary to the scientific method. Strange you would defy the thing you are trying to say your beliefs fit with.

Side: No
-5 points
testrunist(12) Disputed
2 points

The fact of the matter is that there is more scientific evidence for the big bang and evolution than there is for creationism. Unfortunately religion only has had philosophical arguments so far and everyone knows that: evidence > argument.

Side: No
4 points

The fact of the matter is that creationism violates the basic rules of science because it requires a supernatural force. Not only that, but it doesn't offer up any testable hypothesis (thus it's not science).

Side: No
Aaronv1995 Disputed
1 point

And what is this "so-called" evidence you speak of. Evolution and big bang do not have any witnesses, but religion does. They wrote it down in the Bible. So again, what is the supporting evidence for Evolution and the Big Bang?

Side: Yes
CaptFothel(8) Disputed
1 point

Whether Evolution and the Rapid Expansion of this Universe in the Initial Moments of the Creation of this Universe (Big Bang is a slur used against the theory, and it fails to adequately summarize the theory in anyway) are correct or not is irrelevant to this debate, this debate is about whether creationism should be taught in science classes. Your argument is also fallacious, as we can examine both what continues to occur and the results of the past. To have someone observe it is exactly the same, as we assume the observer could observe what happens and document in someway what happened, just like we can today, and then we observe the results of the observation and documentation that occurred when it happened. You may believe that there is a caring creator, but we will not allow you to teach words as truth without using competent thought, logic, and evidence to prove if it is in fact truth. The greatest differences, though, between creationism and science, is that creationism is it can't be formed into a hypothesis, for there is no prediction it makes. Creationism doesn't answer as many questions as effectively as evolution, "the big bang" theory, and the plethora of other scientific theories used to gain greater explanation of our universe. Evolution explains why classification can be done, why do we see similar features in different species, why do creatures have the imperfect designs they have. Scientific theories help to explain, but creationism doesn't explain. You would not accept "because evolution made it so", yet creationism says "because God made it so". Why do all vertebrates have a bilateral body plan? Because God gave them that! Why don't starfish have it then? Because God decided to give them a radial body. These are not answers, they are obvious statements equivalent to saying "because they do". Creationism and science are different ways of approaching the world, one of answering questions with fairy tales and "because!" explanations, and the other is observing everything we can and piecing it together logically.

Side: No
0 points

wow!!!! that is soo right!!!! i totally agree!!! why do people say that creationism is simply based on opinion???!!! its really crazy when in fact so is evolution!!! it has never been proven true by anyone!!! the whole "big bang theory" is a bunch of hog-wash if you ask me! a big huge world with people and everything cannot just explode into being from a small atom or whatever they are saying it was. something or someone had to have created it!!! who or what!!!??? that should be the question and the answer should be GOD!!!! duh

Side: yes
Shivscape(20) Disputed
1 point

simply untrue. evolution doesn't need to be proved, it is a theory as it has no math in it.

It has the most evidence for it and therefore should be taught in schools

Side: No
1 point

just because you don't understand the evidence behind the bing bang theory doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

The difference is that if you prove any of those things wrong science will change its understanding of the universe. With intelligent design nothing is testable or falsifiable therefore there is nothing to experiment with and no conclusions to come to other than god did whatever he wanted - that is not science.

For example, Genesis says there was an earth with water and plants and trees and night and day before there was a sun - when science shows the necessity of the sun for the earth to have an atmosphere, and water, and plant growth, etc. either people say the biblical creation account is more metaphorical or they say God can do anything - either way it is no longer falsafiable.

Side: No
CaptFothel(8) Disputed
1 point

I am ignorant as to the evidence for the "big bang", therefore it is wrong. Fallacious thought processes. Either the sign of a lack of experience with thought or the lack of skill. Which one is a prerequisite to fanaticism, or will either one do?

Side: No
13 points

Creationism is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. Presenting it as such is wrong. Until such time as there is compelling scientific proof that creationism is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution it should not be presented in science classes. That's not to say that it can't be discussed in a World Religions class or something similar. Merely that it has no place in a science classroom.

Side: No
1 point

Hey PVT,

though we are enemies on the site (haha) I completely agree with you on this one!

Even though I find creationism ludicrous and I shudder to think that children in this country are actually being seriously subject to this, I have no problem with it being taught as a non-science class, in fact I encourage all fields of thought be taught to promote understanding and diplomacy. But Like PVT says, this way of thinking is not scientifically proven, in fact in many ways scientifically wrong. Thus, I wouldn't approve of it as a substitute to a more legitimate curriculum.

Side: No
Ledfoot(133) Disputed
1 point

Creationism is also a theory of how everything came to be, scientific or not. Creationism is just as logical of an explanation as Evolution or the Big Bang theory too. you can argue: Where there is design, there must be a designer. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found ‘S.O.S.’ written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. Same as with the Big Bang or Evolution. Something so complex and so complicated that humans, after thousands of years, still do not fully comprehend could have happened by mere chance!?!?

Side: yes
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
2 points

Creationism is also a theory of how everything came to be, scientific or not.

...Um...ok, since it's NOT a theory based in science, why should it be taught in a science classroom?

I'm not saying it's a theory you shouldn't believe if you want to, but it should not be taught as science. Science teaches conclusions from observations. Creationism is not a conclusion reached from observation, therefore, creationism is not science.

Side: No
1 point

Suppose you are walking along a beach and you see a rainbow. Would you assume it had some creator with an intent for it to exist or that it has merely natural causes?

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism

Side: No
gypsy21(3) Disputed
0 points

i disagree, no offense, but there is tons of evidence supporting the biblical accounts of many things, nothing else in the bible has been proven false. In fact the more they try to disprove the bible the more they find to be fact. it is all over the internet it can easily be checked.

Side: Yes
E223(193) Disputed
5 points

[Citation Needed]

Side: No
Probama123(44) Disputed
3 points

well stuff in the bible hasn't been proven true either. Under your philosophy, accused criminals should go to jail without trial, because we cannot prove that they didn't commit the crime. Sorry bud the world doesn't work that way.

Side: No
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
2 points

nothing else in the bible has been proven false

1-The Bible's timeline sets the world's age at 6,000 years old. Evidence from astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, geomorphology and physics set the world's age at around 4 1/2 billion years old. 4,540,000,000. That's a slight difference of just 4,539,994,000 years. A source I found on the internet instead of just copping out and telling you to find it yourself

2-The Bible says that God made man right after he created the earth, but scientific fact proves that dinosaurs existed prior to mankind.

Side: No
ledhead818(637) Disputed
1 point

That's an awfully big claim. You might want to, you know, point us toward some evidence instead of saying "it's all over the internet."

Side: No
CaptFothel(8) Disputed
1 point

The Bible makes many incorrect claims about the physical world, such as insects having 4 legs (Lev 11:21-22), rabbits chewing cud (they do not) (Lev 11:6), snakes eating dirt and/or dust (Genesis 3:14), bats being birds (Lev 11:13,19 and Deu 14:11-12,18), Earth being motionless (Psalms 104:5) and many more. It seems as if the bible is incorrect at least occasionally when it makes claims about the natural world, thus making statement 1 incorrect. The implied statement that statement 1 proves that everything in the bible is correct is fallacious, as being correct on any number of claims the bible makes can't guarantee accuracy of any other claim made by the bible (fallacy of composition). Statement 2, a supporting fact, is not provided with proof of any experiments or investigations with the purpose of disproving the bible, let alone evidence that the results were in favor of literal biblical text. Statement 3 attempts to poorly support statement 2; my investigation of statement 3 has not yet brought up anything more than a list of heavy creation-biased sites, each full of a plethora of garbage, and some questions on answers.yahoo.com (the answers to these questions seem to share the criticisms I have for statement 2 and 3). If statement 2 and 3 can even be considered correct, then a more reasonable site should have an article documenting events such as claimed by statement 2. Gypsy21's argument must be incorrect, as all statements are false and/or lacking evidence, and all logic is fallacious.

Side: No
3 points

No, for one it's not a science. There is no evidence to support any of it's claims. The only way I would accept any reference to creationism in my Biology class would be "Ok class, this is a perfect example of what you should not believe in, and heres why."

I wouldn't mind if it was it's own elective,but to make it state tested curriculum as a science is moronic. Plus I don't think half of the people in my school could be taught two contradicting lessons in one class, their heads just might explode.

Side: No
3 points

No. It's not scientific in any way. It is not a hypothesis, theory, or a law. It was not deducted from the scientific method. There is no proof of it, and there are really no processes/mechanisms to study. If they want the teachers to mention that creationism exists just as a side note while studying evolution that's fine, but you can't study creationism.

Side: No
3 points

Something should only be taught in a scientce class if it has some kind of scientific basis. There is nothing scientific about creationism. It is opinion and belief, not science.

Side: No
3 points

No, it's like teaching algebra in Science. Sure algebra may be reffered to in Science for some cases but it's definitely not something you incorporate into the year's learning schedule. That's what Religious Studies is for.

Side: No
3 points

Creationism belongs in a science classroom as much as alchemy and astrology do, which is not at all.

Side: No
3 points

No. It has nothing to do with applicable science. Even if you do consider it to be science, creationism has no useful implementations in the modern world. Until we figure out how to become gods ourselves, there is no use in learning how a god can make a world.

Side: No
3 points

No, gods (ie: deus ex machina theories) should be not taught in science class. It derails the concept of empirical research.

Side: No
1 point

Creationism should be taught in a church.

Evolution should be taught in ALL schools.

Side: No
1 point

I oppose teaching creationism in science class until Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can be taught in science class (Which I hope will be never). Touched by His Noodly Appendage

Side: No
1 point

No, that is what Sunday school (or catechism or CCD) is for. I learned about creationism ONLY in religious institutions, as it should be. I heard the arguments behind each side and I have realized that evolution makes sense and that creationism is either a story with a message behind it or a way to explain that what could not be explained at the time.

Side: No

No. It simply does not operate using the scientific method, therefore it is not science. And those few attempts to redefine it so it can at least potentially fit into the scientific method are simply not supported by observable evidence.

Side: No

I would actually favor an approach to education that emphasizes core SKILLS and

makes all the opinion-based topics more elective. We had social studies when I was in school. And it was interesting, but I didn't realize at the time that we were being taught a view of the world that was largely based on opinion. We built our nation on slave labor

and exploited the poor in every possible through the 1960s. Then, suddenly we all found Jesus at church camp and we're supposed to believe that everything is okay now.

A large part of what we struggle against in our society is that we live in a world that says "people are basically useless" and "you won't get anything out of your works unless you stay on top of them". That view is a throw-back to the days when you overseers on horses, looking down on their "work force".

We say we don't believe in slavery anymore, yet we all buy products made in

countries where they are paid $.30 an hour and have very little recourse.

The ideology of slavery is alive and real.

Side: No
1 point

well the bible says that God walk upon the Earth which was without form and darkness was upon the face of it. in the beginning he created along with the heavens, not a particular dating. now even the man who found carbon dating says that it is not accurate. and how could a big bang happen when there is no oxygen in space, if you know your science you would understand that everything would've just sucked back into place. and God did not write the bible various uthiors did, however all of it was inspired by the Spirit of God. HMB for deAILS MY gOD rEIGNS

Side: No
0 points

What's the point? It would force those who don't like it to teach it, obviously doing a poor job of representing it.

What's funny about this argument is that its inspired by Expelled, which doesn't talk about teaching creationism in schools, but about the persecution from evolutionists to any dissenting opinion.

Also funny is the idea that evolution is observed. The only thing observed is speciation, which is enlarged to cover kinds becoming other kinds, which has never been observed. And any talk about the beginning of this universe should not be taught in science classes, becuase it can't be observed and tested. What we have is various evidence that is interpreted by people, and their worldviews bias that interpretation.

Side: No
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
5 points

Actually, stating that the beginning of the universe can't be observed isn't technically true. With a powerful enough telescope one could actually, theoretically peering directly back to the beginning of the universe. It's a strange but very cool idea. As for evolution not being observed there is a far amount of evidence to support the theory. I do agree that people in general should be more open to ideas that differ from their opinion but there really aren't any theories on the subject that present more compelling evidence (that I know of at least).

Side: Yes
Kaira(54) Disputed
3 points

Well, I know quite a few teachers that don't like evolution, but they do a good job of teaching it anyways. And I haven't watched Expelled yet, so I don't know what it says, but the obvious next step in Intelligent Design (pretty much the same as creationism) being scientifically accepted is it being taught as an alternative theory.

Side: Yes
-1 points

There is simply nothing to teach.

Side: No
Aaronv1995 Disputed
2 points

Here, this should help you teach it:

Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Footnotes:

a.Genesis 1:26 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text the earth

Side: Yes