Should Creationism be taught in Public School?

Originally posted by Geolion1
Question 1:
Do you know what creationism is? (Answer truthfully)

Yes. I was raised in a very religious home, so I am very familiar with it.

Question 2: Should creationism be taught in public schools? Yes or No, if you want you may add a reason why? Thanks

No. Public schools are paid for by tax dollars and to teach a religious belief in the classroom is the equivalent of the government respecting the establishment of a religion, which is against the first Amendment, showing a preference for one religion over the others.

Creationism is a religious doctrine. Religion should be taught in the church and/or home by clergy and parents.

The exception would be a non-mandatory "World Religions" class, where many religions of the world are explored and their beliefs examined. It would have to include equally, Judaism, Wicca, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, Neopaganism, and others as well as Atheism. None should be favored or taught as the truth, though. Just a study.


[edit on 3/2/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

No. In fact, it shouldn't be taught anywhere. Such mythologies only serve to confuse otherwise normal and intelligent minds and arguably serve as an impedance to the progress of mankind.

Schools should educate kids based on the best available knowledge, and scientific conclusions based on available evidence.

Since evolution seems to be based on educated extrapolations of scientific study, and masses of evidence that would suggest the 'theory' to be correct, it is the best available knowledge. Science is ever changing, and education should follow these changes (an example would be where in the 60's-70's we were taught that large dinosaurs spent their time in swamps to support their massive body weight. It later became evident that they had the musculature and bone structure to carry themselves just fine).

Creationism is based on faith. As such there is little supporting evidence and scientific thinking, and absolutely no room for change! It is a religious belief and should be taught as such, along with all other religions and mythology. If parents feel that creationism and Christianity should be taught, they have the option to homeschool, or to seek an off-campus establishment where it is taught. Public spending should never be used on religious teaching unless it is a comparative study to broaden the knowledge of the students.

Teaching myth/religion as fact is not education. It is indoctrination.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No. In fact, it shouldn't be taught anywhere. Such mythologies only serve to confuse otherwise normal and intelligent minds and arguably serve as an impedance to the progress of mankind.

ahhh, the typical snobbish elite reaction. Religious people are stupid.

Okay - i'll call myself an idiot when you PROVE any of the following leaps of faith:


1.) The Big Bang
2.) Evolution
3.) Scientology
4.) Space Aliens
5.) Conspiracy to kill Kennedy
6.) Any conspiracy you believe in that is not yet proven true
7.) Origin of species: Mankind.


Until then, you know as much about existence as any bible thumping preaching at a podium.



[edit on 2-3-2010 by Snarf]

reply to post by Snarf


Scientology is a complete fraud. Why do you even include it on the list? As for the "Big Bang" and evolution, there are many excellent books that explain the reasoning for a lay audience. It is not my responsibility to do your work for you. Neither requires a leap of faith, merely an ability to understand reasoning and evidence. (And a bit of math for the cosmology.)

Eventually Creationism will be taught in schools as one of the greatest follies in the history of science.

It should not be taught in any other context.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Snarf

 

Scientology is a complete fraud. Why do you even include it on the list? As for the "Big Bang" and evolution, there are many excellent books that explain the reasoning for a lay audience. It is not my responsibility to do your work for you. Neither requires a leap of faith, merely an ability to understand reasoning and evidence. (And a bit of math for the cosmology.)

They are all leaps of faith because NONE OF THEM can be proven. NOT A SINGLE ONE of them.

Just because YOU have faith that they're real, doesn't make them real. Just because YOU read something of their dogma in a book - doesn't make it real.

Funny how science & religion both have books full of information that can't be proven that come in the form of "theories" (Faith).

The Theory of Relativity
The Theory of The Big Bang
The Theory of Evolution

All whopping, gigantic, Godless leaps of faith. Could they be real? Yes, certainly. But so could God.


In terms of 'science' they are no more real than any religion.

And Scientology IS a fraud. I agree. But apparently, 8,000,000 other people disagree...and have made it a church & religion.

Idiocy comes in all forms from all backgrounds and from all levels of intelligence.

"My team" politics applies to areas of science as well:

"God doesn't exist! All of existence came from NOTHING"

"God does exist! All of existence came from GOD"


and yaa - faith be unto both of them.

Because neither one of them, in a scientific manner, can be proven.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by Snarf]

The difference between the scientific theories that have been mentioned is that there is evidence to support them. Ok that is not 100% proof of truth but it is a hell of a lot of intelligent people doing many decades of study and research that have concluded this is a more than probability.

In fact things like evolution and the big bang are so well studied that it is at the point where one would actually have to disprove them before they could argue any other case. And nobody will be able to, because these are sound scientific theories. (Not theories as in ideas pulled form the air as you seem to be confusing them with)



The Bible and creationist theory is simply stories told by men and believed by other men.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by The Teller]

reply to post by Snarf


There seems to be some confusion in your use of words like "proof" and "dogma." Science is a methodology that establishes a body of knowledge through observation and experiment. Anyone can repeat the experiment with the same results. When refined measurements vary from the currently accepted model, it is revised, and the body of knowledge is changed accordingly. In the scientific method, "proof" consists of a model that accurately predicts future observations. "Dogma," on the other hand, is a body of belief based on the weight of authority. Should someone attempt to test this body of belief and obtain results that conflict with the dogma, they will be branded "heretics" and the dogma will remain unchanged. In theory, certain aspects of dogma may be subject to experimentation and "proof" in the scientific sense. The results have varied, but the dogma remains unchanged. Science is a methodology and yields the same results whether the experimenter is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Communist, Capitalist, etc. Dogma is arbitrary, and it is precisely the voluntary leap of faith that determines whether the individual is Christian, Jewish, etc. Science is based on universality and repeatability. Religion is exclusive, and no two people have precisely the same beliefs.

reply to post by DJW001

Science is a methodology that establishes a body of knowledge through observation and experiment.

I agree. It is. But when other people (non-scientists) who call themselves scientists will make a claim that "this is true" or "This is not true" without having gone through observation and experimentation to arrive at a true or false destination...that is called faith. It is NOT called science.


I didn't make the rules. Scientists did. I just ask that they abide by them.

reply to post by Snarf


Agreed. Nevertheless, Creationism (AKA ID) is not science, and portraying it as such can only lead to confusion.

reply to post by Snarf


The Theory of Evolution can be, and has been, proven. The scientific method requires a theory not only be able to explain previous phenomena, but also be able to predict future phenomena using the same rules. The TofE has done that, with experiments leading to observed speciation in the laboratory, and of finds of new species of insects in, and only in, man-made structures. It can explain the past, and predict the future. It is science, and requires no faith.

The TofE is not a leap of faith. To say it is is intellectually dishonest.

We had obligatory religion classes at school (one of my favourite subjects) but they were about all major religions. Teaching creation myths in such classes is fine with me..

[edit on 3-3-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Snarf
Just because YOU have faith that they're real, doesn't make them real. Just because YOU read something of their dogma in a book - doesn't make it real.

Funny how science & religion both have books full of information that can't be proven that come in the form of "theories" (Faith).

The Theory of Relativity
The Theory of The Big Bang
The Theory of Evolution

All whopping, gigantic, Godless leaps of faith. Could they be real? Yes, certainly. But so could God.

Meh. I've spent enough time in the lab doing physics experiments to know that the theory of relativity checks out pretty well, basically as good as they come. So please don't talk about "leaps of faith", that's just sounds incredibly silly. There are things not as directly measurable, but still compatible with facts as best we can reconcile them, and that would be the big bang etc. When we learn new facts or refine old ones, we'll refine our theory and will come up with a new one. That's science.

Creationism, on the other hand, depends on proclamation of the existence of some supernatural being and in that regard is no different from voodoo.

Should voodoo be taught in our schools? With our tax dollars and all? There are some neat trick in voodoo, I heard.

Originally posted by davesidious
The Theory of Evolution can be, and has been, proven.

I think people get confused with the regular English word "theory" and the meaning of a "Theory" using scientific method. Either they get confused or don't know the difference.

Scientific Law, Hypotheses and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
...
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
...
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

There's a BIG difference between the theory of creation and the Theory or Relativity. BIG!

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Creation Myths of ALL religions I believe should be taught in US schools say beyond the 9th grade (when students at least in the US are old enough to handle 'new' information which they parents might not be able to) provided that the Hindu Creation Myths (especially Purusha and Virj) are taught alongside the Amerindian Creation Myths (e.g. the Doctrine of the Great Spirit and the Earth Maker), alongside the Mayan Popul Vuh Creator Mytns and the Twins Myth, alonside the various Greek Myths of Creation (especially The Overthrow of Cronus by Zeus and the Fall of The Titans, and the Creation of Mankind by Prometheus &tc.), and the main Egyptian Myths of Creation (of course the Ptah Myth might have to be altered a little for the kiddies since it involves 'divine masturbation' ) alongside the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4a, continues at Gen 5:1-2, where Male & Female Created He Them in His Own Image And He called THEIR Name Adam, i.e. males-females are created TOGETHER, a no nonsense about ribs and talking snakes, &tc.) alongside the Sumero-Akkadian Myths of Creation (e.g. the Enuma Elish), alongside the Babylonian Myths of Creation of the Cosmos by Marduk overcoming Tiamat, alongside the Chinese Myths of Creation (e.g. Di Jun and his Chldlren), alongside various Shinto Japanese myths of Creation, alongside the Australian Aboriginal Myths of Creation (The 'Ancestors ' & 'Dream Time'), alongside the 2nd Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 2:4b to 4:26, the so-called Adam and Eve Story where Eve is 'formed' from the 'side' of Adam) alongside the Germano-Norse Myths of Creation, alongside the Eskimo Myths of Creation (e.g. Sedna & the Giants), alongside the South African Myths of Creation, alongside the Central African Congo Myths of Creation (especially Nzambi and his Illness), alongside the Vodoo and Hoodoo Myths of Creation alongside the Siberian Myths of Creation alongside the Aztec Myths of Creation (Especially Quzatocoatl and his war against the dark chaos god Tezkatlipoca) alongside the Druid Myths of Creation and the later Roman Myths of Creation adapted from the Greek as expressed in Ovid's Metamorophoses of the gods) as well as more than 100 other major Creation Myths in the world, both ancient and modern.

First I just have to say, I would so love to take this course.

Do I think creationism should be taught in science class? Never. It doesn't belong there. However, in a philosphy class, a comparitive religion class, or even history of religion - as an elective comparitive to a history or philopshy class. It depends on how it is presented.

I also agree that it should not be taught until high school.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Oh definitely - the number of times I've had to try to correct someone's understanding of the word is staggering. If only those pesky scientists chose a different word, we'd not be in this mess! :-P

Evolution has never, once, been proven. Which is why it is still considered a theory.

Why are you making these things up?

Your "scientific" theories are no more credible than any religious explanation as to origin of species - and i say that by using YOUR guidelines as to what is considered true & false. You know - having no proof? At all...just completely wild 'educated' guesses.

im sorry that you're unwilling to adhere to your own adopted set of rules and refuse to acknowledge that you can't prove your version of how life started.

I can't prove my either.

But my religion doesn't require proof.

Yours does.


[edit on 3-3-2010 by Snarf]

reply to post by Snarf


Theories are the best explanation for the observable data. The theory of evolution happens to account for everything we have observed. This therefore makes it the best theory. There is absolutely nothing else that is so complete in explaining what we observe in nature. If you have a better theory go ahead and present it. Scientific theory is what allows you to sit in your house with electricity, with a computer, and be able to argue things on the internet. Everything we know is based off of scientific theory, so if you can't believe in scientific theory how can you even be sure you're actually talking to people right now?

reply to post by Snarf


Oh dear. I give up.