PDA

View Full Version : Creationism and Intelligent Design in Schools


-ty-
August 11th, 2011, 12:35 PM
Several of our congressmen and presidential candidates advocate for either allowing or mandating that creationism or "intelligent design" be taught in schools along-side evolution. Some include, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, among others.

If legislation were passed to mandate or allow Creationism to be taught in public schools as a science wouldn't that be deemed unconstitutional according to the establishment clause? Wouldn't you have to include all religions' evolutionary theories in the course without any exceptions? Is there any other viable proof about these theories other than their religious texts?

HarrisonH
August 11th, 2011, 01:47 PM
It has already been found unconstitutional multiple times. The Scopes Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial), McLean v. Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas), Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard), and most recently, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District).

It has been ruled multiple times that Creationism/ID is not science. There is no "significant controversy" in the scientific community as Bachmann and others claim about evolution.

No, you wouldn't have to include other religions' evolutionary "theories" in the course, because none of them are science. In a "World Religions" class? Sure, go for it. In biology? Take your nonsense elsewhere.

And no, there is no viable proof about these "theories" other than their religious texts.


Sidenote: I have put "theories" in quotation marks throughout this post to mean that I do not mean them in a scientific context.

-ty-
August 11th, 2011, 02:08 PM
It has already been found unconstitutional multiple times. The Scopes Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial), McLean v. Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas), Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard), and most recently, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District).

It has been ruled multiple times that Creationism/ID is not science. There is no "significant controversy" in the scientific community as Bachmann and others claim about evolution.

No, you wouldn't have to include other religions' evolutionary "theories" in the course, because none of them are science. In a "World Religions" class? Sure, go for it. In biology? Take your nonsense elsewhere.

And no, there is no viable proof about these "theories" other than their religious texts.


Sidenote: I have put "theories" in quotation marks throughout this post to mean that I do not mean them in a scientific context.

I know what you mean! Bachmann stated, "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." These comments make me laugh, and cringe at the same time; could our next president advocate for fascism! The only way that this could sneak around the establishment clause is if ever single religion's origin "theories" were taught in schools, which is essentially impractical and impossible.

HarrisonH
August 11th, 2011, 02:46 PM
I know what you mean! Bachmann stated, "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." These comments make me laugh, and cringe at the same time; could our next president advocate for fascism! The only way that this could sneak around the establishment clause is if ever single religion's origin "theories" were taught in schools, which is essentially impractical and impossible.

She hasn't been able to back up her claims at all, see here (http://www.repealcreationism.com/508/17-year-old-to-michelle-bachmann-show-me-your-nobel-laureate-scientists/). She just makes stuff up.

twocows
August 11th, 2011, 02:58 PM
If they teach creationism, I demand that they teach my religion: Pastafarianism. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created us all from His Noodly Appendage. This is HARD SCIENCE and if you are going to teach other religions as science, I demand Pastafarianism to be taught as well!

Bluerang1
August 11th, 2011, 03:23 PM
They teach it in London. They teach about all religions and you have to learn unless your religion forbids it, Jehovah's Witnesses that is. I don't want to offend but this is why some American's are very ignorant. Even about the world around them. Do they teach Geography enough?

-ty-
August 11th, 2011, 03:38 PM
They teach it in London. They teach about all religions and you have to learn unless your religion forbids it, Jehovah's Witnesses that is. I don't want to offend but this is why some American's are very ignorant. Even about the world around them. Do they teach Geography enough?


The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:

1) defend and promote scientific knowledge;
2) strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
3)make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
4)firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of 5)promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curricula.

In each of the countries of the United Kingdom, there is an agreed syllabus for religious education with the right of parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The religious education syllabus does not involve teaching creationism, but rather teaching the central tenets of major world faiths.[66] At the same time, the teaching of evolution is compulsory in publicly funded schools. For instance, the National Curriculum for England requires that students at Key Stage 4 (14-16) be taught:
1)that the fossil record is evidence for evolution
2)how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

Creationism is not taught as a science; it is taught as a religious belief, like other origin stories from other religions.
Religious studies are offered at some high schools, and almost all colleges and universities in the United States. However, like London, creationism is not taught as a science; it's a non-scientific philosophy.

The prompt is addressing political figures that support teaching creationism along-side evolution as science.

Bluerang1
August 11th, 2011, 04:02 PM
It shouldn't be taught as a Science then because it isn't. Though fact to be, it's belief so not sciency Science xD

Shining Raichu
August 11th, 2011, 04:10 PM
I don't care if they teach about it as religion or as part of history as something that was once widely believed - because Creationism, however silly as a concept - is still a school of thought and nothing should be censored. However, teaching something as science when it has no basis in anything but superstition and fantasy religious belief is wrong.

-ty-
August 11th, 2011, 04:13 PM
Also, to clarify, if religious studies are taught in school, students should not be encouraged/discouraged from taking part in the religion. The facts are that some cultures believe a certain way; the beliefs, however, cannot be treated as facts.

G.U.Y.
August 11th, 2011, 06:37 PM
It's a school. Schools teach facts. Not a church. Churches teach beliefs.

Completely different. I can believe that my pop can will kill me in my sleep. Doesn't make it 100% fact.

Livewire
August 11th, 2011, 06:49 PM
We have separation of Church vs State for a reason, and we are a secular republic, if you look at the religious views of the framers and their intent when building our country. It's been ruled unconstitutional, leave it that way.

2Cool4Mewtwo
August 11th, 2011, 07:17 PM
I'm against this at all costs. It's basically asking to force religious beliefs into some people who are irreligious, and many who have different sets of beliefs. I don't see how any student would benefit from this. Indeed, there are world religion courses, but they're optional courses.

Harley Quinn
August 11th, 2011, 09:19 PM
It's a stupid idea that Creationism should be taught as a science, let alone at all. It's a system of beliefs, flawed beliefs if I may say so myself. If it should be taught at all, it should be an optional subject and it should be taught as a philosophy, a way of life. There's a reason that it's been ruled unconstitutional before, just leave it be and learn about Creationism at your respective churches.

Alice
August 11th, 2011, 09:29 PM
Am I the only one that thinks that teaching evolution should be conisdered equivalent to teaching a religion? It teaches how life came to exist, which is the whole point of religion in the first place.

I've always thought schools should avoid anything to do with how life/the universe came into existence, whether it's considered scientific or not, because obviously there's no way we're ever going to know for sure.

deoxys121
August 11th, 2011, 09:33 PM
Creationism is a belief. Evolution is a scientific fact, or at the very least a theory with a lot of scientific evidence backing it up. Religious texts are the only source that states anything about creationism, but no scientific evidence exists to prove such. People go to school to get taught facts; people go to church to learn beliefs. Therefore, creationism should not be taught in school. It's unconstitutional.

-ty-
August 11th, 2011, 09:40 PM
The scary thing is that Louisiana teachers are allowed to teach intelligent design in the classroom, along side evolution theories as a science as of 2008. Although there is not a mandate, recent legislation allows it to be taught and discussed as a viable science. Texas is the next state that may follow suit; they have introduced similar legislation. Although this may seem like an open-shut case, more conservative states are becoming more interested in allowing creationism to be taught as a scientific theory.

Alice
August 11th, 2011, 09:45 PM
Evolution is the scientifically accepted explanation, but that does not make it fact.

I do agree, religion should not be taught in school, but neither should evolution.

HarrisonH
August 11th, 2011, 10:55 PM
Evolution is the scientifically accepted explanation, but that does not make it fact.

I do agree, religion should not be taught in school, but neither should evolution.

Oh, dear...

So, do you think we should teach any other science in classes? After all, the religious can just say "god did it" to everything. Why's the sky blue? God did it. Why is grass green? God did it. We can't teach about light reflection and wavelengths, because it's religion's job to say that god did everything.

Science is the study of how things are and how things happen in the natural world. How life came to be is included in that, and it is scientific fact that evolution occurs.

Saying that we should take science out of science classrooms is the reason that the USA is falling behind. The anti-intellectualism prominent here is going to be the downfall of our country.

Myles
August 11th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Evolution is the scientifically accepted explanation, but that does not make it fact.

I do agree, religion should not be taught in school, but neither should evolution.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It's as much a fact as gravity or the fact that the Earth isn't flat (which both conflict with literal biblical interpretation creationism just as much as evolution).

-ty-
August 11th, 2011, 11:03 PM
The thing about evolution is that there are a series of facts that comprise the argument, however, like music theory or geometric theories, these series of facts are evaluated through the scientific methods. Unlike intelligent design, evolutionary, plate tectonics, and anatomic theories have factual basis that provides best explanation, although not bullet-proof. The same goes for court, although sometimes alleged murders are must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there does not have to be 100% evidence that the alleged person committed the crime. If that were the case, the majority of murders that were sent to prison (only a marginal amount did not commit their crimes), may not have been convicted.

Oryx
August 11th, 2011, 11:17 PM
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It's as much a fact as gravity or the fact that the Earth isn't flat (which both conflict with literal biblical interpretation creationism just as much as evolution).

I like the qualification of "literal" that you used there. Too many people here don't understand that in general, outside of literal interpretation, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Many people believe God created the world, but that the idea of evolution can still stand if you don't take the Old Testament literally, which a lot of people don't and is the official position of a lot of religions.

What people don't understand about evolution as a theory is the scientific definition of theory. A theory in scientific terms is all 90% of things are; it's a rigorously tested set a criteria, not some crackpot dreaming something up and calling it a theory. It's something that has not been proven wrong at all ever. If it was proven wrong, it wouldn't be a theory. So all those people that don't believe in evolution? Good for you! Go prove it wrong.

As far as ID in schools, I agree that it can be taught in an elective class only, or if it's taught along with other ideologies and beliefs in how the world was created. It has a place, just not in science classrooms.

Shining Raichu
August 11th, 2011, 11:30 PM
The scary thing is that Louisiana teachers are allowed to teach intelligent design in the classroom, along side evolution theories as a science as of 2008. Although there is not a mandate, recent legislation allows it to be taught and discussed as a viable science. Texas is the next state that may follow suit; they have introduced similar legislation. Although this may seem like an open-shut case, more conservative states are becoming more interested in allowing creationism to be taught as a scientific theory.

To me, this seems like the last-ditch effort to fight back against the progressive world, which is exactly what religion does: fights progress.

Oh, dear...

So, do you think we should teach any other science in classes? After all, the religious can just say "god did it" to everything. Why's the sky blue? God did it. Why is grass green? God did it. We can't teach about light reflection and wavelengths, because it's religion's job to say that god did everything.

Science is the study of how things are and how things happen in the natural world. How life came to be is included in that, and it is scientific fact that evolution occurs.

Saying that we should take science out of science classrooms is the reason that the USA is falling behind. The anti-intellectualism prominent here is going to be the downfall of our country.

This, essentially. The thing about evolution's battle with science is that creationism is all-pervasive. If God created the world, then he created all forms of science found within it which means to teach intelligent design as fact would not just undermine evolution theory, but all other forms of science under the umbrella of Jesus Christ.

Went
August 12th, 2011, 12:16 AM
If you want your kid to believe in your religious myths, you can send him to Church, and then reinforce his beliefs at home. But the point of having school is giving all children a (somewhat) standard education about the accepted scientific facts. Challenging those facts because of your beliefs (aka opinions) is the opposite of what schools should be.

Oryx
August 12th, 2011, 12:30 AM
If you want your kid to believe in your religious myths, you can send him to Church, and then reinforce his beliefs at home. But the point of having school is giving all children a (somewhat) standard education about the accepted scientific facts. Challenging those facts because of your beliefs (aka opinions) is the opposite of what schools should be.

I believe that there's much more to schools than "scientific facts", tbh. Learning "this is what some people believe", in an appropriate class, is perfectly alright to me although these aren't facts. I went to a Catholic school, and even then in our religion class, they didn't teach us that all the morals and history and Bible that we learned was right. We were taught as if it was just another class, we had to memorize the history of the Church as if it was the history of a country, and had to know the doctrine like we would have to know the reasoning behind the Civil War in US History. A lot of people in that class, me included, didn't really care for the Church at all, but it didn't hurt us to learn what the Church believed. In fact, I feel like this has made me better equipped to debate with people - you can ask Shining Raichu, although I'm not religious I know plenty about religion and therefore can argue very specific points about what they believe and how they act.

Part of school to me is learning about the ideas of others, not just the scientific facts. That's why there are philosophy classes, and classes that nurture your opinion. The teaching of beliefs such as Intelligent Design need to be handled responsibly, of course, and not taught in scientific curricula. But in a place that presents it as "this is what some people believe", it can be an invaluable lesson both for people that actually do believe it and people that don't.

Myles
August 12th, 2011, 12:58 AM
But that 'some people believe it' is a fact. So it fits in sociology, history or religious studies.

Oryx
August 12th, 2011, 01:01 AM
Or Philosophy, but that's generally not taught in high school and below I believe. :P

Black Ice
August 12th, 2011, 03:52 AM
Wow this thread blew up.

I've been taking philosophy for two years. We have not touched on the idea of creationism yet. We have, however, discussed the probability of deities and what they mean to humans. We decided any god that exists acts a lot like random chance, but the possibility of a god who only created the universe is still somewhat viable (albeit a pointless belief to substitute for the much more well-researched/supported big bang theory since believing in this god wouldn't affect your afterlife).

Yeah, this shouldn't be taught in school. Creationism covers only a few religions and has no scientific basis other than "the world is too perfect" and "you can't prove it wrong."

twocows
August 12th, 2011, 04:11 AM
They teach it in London. They teach about all religions and you have to learn unless your religion forbids it, Jehovah's Witnesses that is. I don't want to offend but this is why some American's are very ignorant. Even about the world around them. Do they teach Geography enough?
The height of irony: calling other people ignorant when you don't understand the situation you're talking about (e.g., claiming Americans are ignorant because they don't teach religion when the ACTUAL situation is that some people are suggesting religion be taught as a science when it's already taught as its own separate study).

Blue Nocturne
August 12th, 2011, 05:26 AM
There's no way Creationism should be taught in science, even if it is something like "Some people believe..." because even just by teaching them side by side suggests it has the same level of scientific merit as Evolution... which it just doesn't. It also wastes time that could be spent teaching other things that are actually scientific fact and theory.

Having said that, it's important that students are at least aware of these beliefs, but keep it where it belongs, in Religion/History/Philosophy.

Esper
August 12th, 2011, 11:08 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that evolution needs to be taught alongside creationism... in religious studies class.

Science has a place in religion. Science is the lingua franca of the world, like mathematics. It's how we bridge the understanding gap between people. I say "1 + 2" and you say "3" and we are on the same level. You say "god" and I say "god" and we're nowhere near each other. Belief is an inherently personal, subjective thing. It can be the basis of studies and statistics (and is a fine subject to include in philosophy classes and so on), but it is not comprised of facts that exist in the shared world where things can be tested and quantified. Religion has no place in science and religious beliefs should not be put on an equal stance with in a science class.

-ty-
August 12th, 2011, 07:11 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that evolution needs to be taught alongside creationism... in religious studies class.

Science has a place in religion. Science is the lingua franca of the world, like mathematics. It's how we bridge the understanding gap between people. I say "1 + 2" and you say "3" and we are on the same level. You say "god" and I say "god" and we're nowhere near each other. Belief is an inherently personal, subjective thing. It can be the basis of studies and statistics (and is a fine subject to include in philosophy classes and so on), but it is not comprised of facts that exist in the shared world where things can be tested and quantified. Religion has no place in science and religious beliefs should not be put on an equal stance with in a science class.

I have had professors that taught evolution, and they are very active in their churches. Outside of class, my professor told me that origin stories would be hard to execute if the author had to include scientific research and reasoning to explain a phenomena. These stories are intended to depict that the Earth was created (metaphorically) overnight in the vast existence of the universe; but it should not be taken literally. Science just helps us take understand the unknowns. So I definitely agree that science should be incorporated into religious discussions, and not vice-versa.

Livewire
September 7th, 2011, 08:25 AM
Maybe, just maybe, if creationists weren't so narrow minded in their pursuit of their own religeous agendas, it'd be considered. What about the creation myths of the other major religions? You can't be taken seriously if you're excluding a few billion people and a dozen or so major faiths. Creationism needs to stay in the churches where it came from. Belief is personal, therefore not concrete and open to perversion and wildly different interpretation. Schools don't teach faith, they teach facts.

Lalapizzame
September 7th, 2011, 02:53 PM
I do not mind creationism being taught in private schools.

I believe creationism should be allowed if and only if a substantial majority of the people in an education district desire it to be taught. It should not be forced upon people by the state or the federal government.

I am no fan of creationism in my state, but I will not endeavor to force upon others the outlawing of it nor shall I endeavor to uphold it. If the majority of the people want it, they can have it. If they don't, so be it. You can always call the question and hope it goes your way, because the sun is in the sky, or there's not a single fly.

aruchan
September 7th, 2011, 08:15 PM
I think it's quite inappropriate to teach creationism in school, especially private ones. Catholic schools are free to include intelligent design/creationism in their curricula, but evolution should be taught in science class as well. Evolution is not a theory in the sense that it doesn't have data to back it up; it is a theory in the same sense gravity is.

In addition, teaching creationism is wrong because it violates the separation of church and state. You can't just decide to teach the Judeo-Christian origin myth without giving the same address to other religions.

Lalapizzame
September 7th, 2011, 09:04 PM
I don't see what's so inappropriate about creationism in private schools; if people do not desire to see such material in their child's education they can choose another school. He who commands the rivers of gold commands to whom it goes to.

Certainly, I would not want evolution to be excluded from curriculum, and secular science should be taught alongside creationism.

If the issue here is unequal distribution of education about religious myths, then perhaps we may accommodate for a certain amount of school-time to be devoted to other religions. I would expect creationist schools to focus on creationism, and that is fine. We lack the time to hold all myths as equal and on the same level as creationism. Allowing the people to vote on this matter may be best. If the separation of Church and State is threatened in the way fellow members of PokeCommunity believe, should we deny the people their democratically-proven wishes? The secular roots of our Constitution and of America are held dear by the majority of the people, but so too is the right to decide what they want to through democracy. While I believe the Constitution must be adhered to firmly, democracy is just as important as the separation of Church and State.

-ty-
September 8th, 2011, 06:09 PM
Private schools should be able to teach intelligent design as a religious philosophy. They should not be able to receive state/federal funding if the school is teaching it as a science alongside evolution.

The two should never be taught side-by-side. One is religious philosophy, which is backed up solely by religious text, and evolution is a scientific theory backed up by research, chemical properties, and other concrete evidence. It would be like teaching social studies/philosophy along side natural sciences. There is no way of proving that Carl Marx's philosophy trumps John Locke's philosophy is "better" than the other objectively. Although the class may discuss their opinions and the pros and cons, there is no way of teaching their philosophies as scientific theories.

twocows
September 8th, 2011, 07:15 PM
I don't see what's so inappropriate about creationism in private schools; if people do not desire to see such material in their child's education they can choose another school. He who commands the rivers of gold commands to whom it goes to.

Certainly, I would not want evolution to be excluded from curriculum, and secular science should be taught alongside creationism.

Teaching children about religion is one thing. Teaching religion as science is entirely different. Religion is not science and has no place in a discussion about science. "Creation science" (and I use the word "science" beyond loosely here) has no place in an educational system, public or private, any more than flat earth theory or the earth-centric universe. If there was a long list of things that should not be taught in a classroom, "creation science" would be very near the top of that list.

Furthermore, I believe all education should be secular. People ought to be free to practice religion, but children should not be subjected to a single religious doctrine as part of their education (I would not have a problem with a mandatory in-depth education on all major religions, however). I personally find that sort of indoctrination of children absolutely contemptible.

Lalapizzame
September 8th, 2011, 08:54 PM
The parents should have the paramount authority in raising their children. We may not support it, but we should interfere in the domestic upbringing of a child. We would be projecting ourselves on parents if we made it forbidden despite it clearly being shown to be the parents' will.

The child, if he or she should so desire it, may reject creationism at any time. They are not slaves to propaganda; they live in a liberal and open society in which their freedom to choose and thus to reject is freely practiced.

Now, you believe all education should be secular. The parents do not, by any stretch of the mind, entirely believe that. Shouldn't education be relatively autonomous and under the jurisdiction of those who uphold it? If the people desire creationist education, are we not imposing tyranny by preventing them from having it? There is no threat to the defense of the realm here, only to your personal beliefs. Contemptible it may be to you, but to others it may be what they want. For others to be able to impose on a substantial number what they desire instead of what the substantial number of people desire, is undemocratic.

The child, so long as it is under the roof of its parents and is kept living by these legal guardians, complies with the wishes of his or her legal guardian(s). Those guardians feed the child, they take care of paperwork for them, they pay taxes and labor to have enough money to clothe them, shelter them, love them, and instill a certain leisurely way of living for them. Why shouldn't the parent be able to decide to what standard they are taught? To deprive them of this cherished capacity over creationism because of our personal sentiment is absolutely contemptible. You desire to keep creationism from entering your education system, but deny others the possibility of having it in curriculum. Desiring for the freedom to abstain from creationism, yet denying others the freedom to have it taught?

As I have discussed with you elsewhere, not enough time is diverted to other religions beside Christianity. To remedy this, you desire to split time evenly between all religions. Now, this is perhaps a more fair system of distribution, but there is one problem. While the average time spent on an individual religion is increased, I am skeptical it is substantive enough to encourage actual learning. It would be just as wasteful as focusing on one religion and having other religions relegated to a lesser role. I believe the results would show less learned about Christianity, and only negligible knowledge added about other religions. If one desires to engage in teaching children about all religions in a remotely substantial amount, one must increase the time that is allocated to the school year at all. That is another story.

My main issue here is that we are trying to project onto others what we personally believe. It may be the popular opinion, yes, but it is still a projection. Unlike obscure and antiquated religions, this is a relatively large number of people who want something. We are a liberal and open society, and America was born a free and conscious nation. Ridicule it you may, but outlaw you must not. I will not try to shake you from your ideals, but to allow these ideals to impose tyranny on opposing views is dangerous. Now, for something like tax cuts or spending, that is not nearly as tyrannical as outlawing or strongly opposing creationism and projecting onto others this opinion through legal arms.

I agree with user -ty-, however, when he suggests teaching creationism alongside evolution should not garner additional funds. There is no reason for funds to be allocated for such a reason.

I am not here to discuss the difference between creationism and evolution. I am here to discuss that there should be a democratic option to choosing creationism in a child's curriculum. If some people believe I have another intention, then I'm afraid it is not so. The personal sentiment of outsiders should not prevent the people from choosing what they may, considering creationism is no considerable harm to the state of a nation. It will not inspire "nutjobs", it will not encourage terrorist actions, and it will not harm someone living in Connecticut or California if a person in Virginia or Kentucky desires to endorse a creationist education for their child. If this child desires self-determination so much, he may live his own life, and develop a state of self-sufficiency. Until then, the legal guardians and caretakers of this child should be able to decide.

Went
September 9th, 2011, 12:02 AM
In my books, teaching a kid that Creationism is a science and possibly real is like teaching the kid that white men are a superior race and everybody else should be our slaves. If the parents want to teach them so, they are free, but I don't think any public institution should support those views. Creationism should be explained in Religion with other tales such as the Resurrection of Jesus or the original sin, and racism should be explained in history. That way, the kids will understand that a) creationism is a religious explanation (so, if you want to drop the religion, it's only logical that you dismiss that explanation as well) and b) racism was an historical fact, and they'll get a full picture with all that it caused and how its effects are still felt there. But teaching Creationism in Science will make kids believe there is some sort of scientifical reasoning to back it up, and teaching racism in Philosophy will amke them believe is acceptable in some way.

If parents feel Creationism makes more sense than Evolution, or if they feel racism is better than equality, they are free to teach their kids whatever they feel. And schools should tell about everything as they are existing beliefs. But they should be regarded as what they are. Creationism is not more scientific that the existence of unicorns, and thus they should have no place in a Science classroom.

If a parent want to teach the kid whatever they want, they can always homeschool them. But you can't pretend the teachers to teach your kid everything you want in the exact class you want. Parents aren't teachers.Most parents don't know anything about how teaching works. Parents should be giving the kid moral standars. Let the teachers teach Science.

Ephemeral Euphoria
September 9th, 2011, 12:14 AM
Personally, I think it should be allowed to be discussed in school if someone ever bought it up in conversation but not unshakably mandatory like prayer in school was a few decades back.

lx_theo
September 9th, 2011, 12:45 PM
Personally, I think it should be allowed to be discussed in school if someone ever bought it up in conversation but not unshakably mandatory like prayer in school was a few decades back.

People are allowed to discuss whatever they like. And in a scientific atmosphere, the discussion would probably be in reference to its validity. That discussion would not last very long.

Ephemeral Euphoria
September 9th, 2011, 01:30 PM
People are allowed to discuss whatever they like. And in a scientific atmosphere, the discussion would probably be in reference to its validity. That discussion would not last very long.

Indeed, it's a rather touchy subject though but nothing so controversial it needs to be banned, at least in my opinion anyways.

lx_theo
September 9th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Indeed, it's a rather touchy subject though but nothing so controversial it needs to be banned, at least in my opinion anyways.
The issue people have is more that people want it to be taught as part of the scientific curriculum, being taught with the same "validity" that evolution has garnered.

I don't think anyone wants it banned outright. Its just not a science in any respect. So to teach it like that goes against any reasonable logic.

Ephemeral Euphoria
September 9th, 2011, 01:59 PM
The issue people have is more that people want it to be taught as part of the scientific curriculum, being taught with the same "validity" that evolution has garnered.

I don't think anyone wants it banned outright. Its just not a science in any respect. So to teach it like that goes against any reasonable logic.

It should be allowed to be discussed and taught but not in the same class as in science, it would be better off as being taught on its own class like how science has a class of its own if the student wished to study such a subject.

Livewire
October 4th, 2011, 08:39 PM
It should be allowed to be discussed and taught but not in the same class as in science, it would be better off as being taught on its own class like how science has a class of its own if the student wished to study such a subject.

Colleges usually have comparative religion classes, I don't see why a High school course couldn't be implemented. Might counteract a lot of bigotry and ignorance.

Esper
October 5th, 2011, 08:28 AM
Colleges usually have comparative religion classes, I don't see why a High school course couldn't be implemented. Might counteract a lot of bigotry and ignorance.
I had a class like this in high school. It was taught by one of the history teachers because they treated it like a history class: the founding of religions, the times and places they were founded, the main ideas behind them, etc. Nothing too different from learning about the American Revolutionary War and the ideas that went into making the Constitution or something similar. Of course, when I learned about that time period our class was allowed to argue for both the American and British views so a certain amount of leeway was allowed for people to have disagreeing views. That same kind of leeway made a religion class possible and kept it from being "pro"-religion and more "this is just what some people believe".

femtrooper
October 16th, 2011, 08:47 PM
That is outrageous. It makes me mad this is even a thought. Another reason I am proud to be Canadian. Creationism is NOT science, and yes, if they were to teach it, they would have to teach all creationist theories, not just Christian beliefs. That is outrageous. Evolution is science, and science is factual. I think if they did this it would offend soooooo many people. Can you imagine? Omg, It is making me mad right now.

FreakyLocz14
October 16th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Students need to be exposed to all possible theories. That includes intelligent design. Creationism is a religious doctrine, so that can't be included.

HarrisonH
October 17th, 2011, 04:18 PM
Students need to be exposed to all possible theories. That includes intelligent design. Creationism is a religious doctrine, so that can't be included.

Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism rebranded, and is not science.

aspie3000
October 17th, 2011, 04:37 PM
Okay, I promised myself that I wouldn't post in other chat because i'll get flamed for my beliefs but i'll make an exception here. I am a creationist who is anti evolution and I do not believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools.

They wouldn't teach it right and would find some way to twist it to their agenda. I don't believe evolution should be taught either except as a theory. Evolution is not of yet a proven fact, and should not be taught as one.

I will not post again in this thread; it's just that this time for some reason I couldn't hold my tongue.

FreakyLocz14
October 17th, 2011, 04:43 PM
Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism rebranded, and is not science.

Intelligent design is significantly different than creationism. Creationism is the Judeao-Christian creation story found in the book of genesis. Intelligent design is a neutral catch-all philosophical theory that some intelligent being (or beings) could have possibly had a hand in the creation of the universe.

The thread topic didn't limit the discussion to science. It says in schools, not science specificially.

I propose that both be taught in public schools with parents having the ability to opt their student out of one or the other if they deem it necessary to do so.

(=Nemesis=)
October 17th, 2011, 04:44 PM
Everything this person said.

Whoa, what's this? Someone making sense in a predictably one-sided argument? Pinch me, someone. I must be dreaming.


Seems to me, correct me if I've got this all wrong, that there are two main opinions on this topic:

1) Creationism is not science and should not be taught as science!
2) I'm an atheist therefore it should not be taught at all!

Wow, Opinion 2. I guess that means you're completely fine with the Roman Catholic church silencing its atheist opposition back in the day.

Opinion 1, there's this thing called "theology". It doesn't revolve around carbon dating or fossil reconstruction or what-have-you. It revolves around analysis of scripture to see where it is matched up to itself, and to historical events and input from other sciences. You don't teach it in physics class, certainly not. But there's no reason why theology can't be taught as part of existing religious education. The state of RE in England at least is a mind-numbing exercise in trying not to offend anyone at any time. It's an important subject taught very very badly.

FreakyLocz14
October 17th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Whoa, what's this? Someone making sense in a predictably one-sided argument? Pinch me, someone. I must be dreaming.


Seems to me, correct me if I've got this all wrong, that there are two main opinions on this topic:

1) Creationism is not science and should not be taught as science!
2) I'm an atheist therefore it should not be taught at all!

Wow, Opinion 2. I guess that means you're completely fine with the Roman Catholic church silencing its atheist opposition back in the day.

Opinion 1, there's this thing called "theology". It doesn't revolve around carbon dating or fossil reconstruction or what-have-you. It revolves around analysis of scripture to see where it is matched up to itself, and to historical events and input from other sciences. You don't teach it in physics class, certainly not. But there's no reason why theology can't be taught as part of existing religious education. The state of RE in England at least is a mind-numbing exercise in trying not to offend anyone at any time. It's an important subject taught very very badly.

This.

Theology is indeed a recognized field of academic study that utilizes elements of philosophy and history. It encourages critical thinking and educates students on the religious cultural diversity of the world around them.

Mr. X
October 18th, 2011, 07:25 PM
Evolution is not of yet a proven fact, and should not be taught as one.


And medicine just suddenly becomes ineffective against a virus. Because the virus god is tired of the evil medicine killing his creations. ********.

You say adapting, I say step one in Evolution.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 21st, 2011, 11:45 AM
They teach it in London. They teach about all religions and you have to learn unless your religion forbids it, Jehovah's Witnesses that is. I don't want to offend but this is why some American's are very ignorant. Even about the world around them. Do they teach Geography enough?

In America, our sacred text (See: The constitution) says we're not allowed to do that. The basis is that it's believed to be the only way to keep an "official" religion from being formed.

However, looking back on the constitution, I have found myself questioning whether our so called method of promoting religious freedom (See: separation of church and state) is functioning the way it's supposed to.

Why do I say that? Well let's see...

Atheism is free of any restrictions on the sole basis that they're "not a religion". All I see is Theism getting the short end of the stick every single time because of wordplay. I think perhaps our forefathers didn't anticipate atheism becoming powerful. From a historical standpoint, why would they? They're not perfect, and they grew up in a world where religion had been powerful since before their entire living family was born.

That being said, the rules on seperation of church and state are so strict that it makes it ridiculously easy for anyone to sabotage any attempts at fairly representing religion. You got a guy who believes in the flying spaghetti monster? You gotta account for him too. It's ridiculously improbable and even if someone did, someone could just invent a new "religion" just to spite their efforts, basically screwing them over.

Lastly, the correct term for 'seperation of church and state' is not in fact 'seperation of church and state'. It's called "freedom of religion". I don't see how giving all theists the short end of the stick whenever possible whereas an atheist can say whatever the heck he/she wants wherever he/she wants to is supposed to promote freedom of religion.

Yeah I suppose letting atheists do/say whatever they please /does/ support 'seperation of church and state' ... if one's aiming to accomplish that by snuffing religion out of the picture. =/

While I question whether this has the full potential to actually kill religion as we know it at any point in time, as that seems rather improbable, I do believe it has the power to do enough damage that we suddenly find we've been broadsided with an official religion that's "not a religion".

In conclusion, I personally think that perhaps it's about time we as the people sat down, reviewed the laws protecting freedom of religion, talked about why they do/don't work and made changes as necessary so that after we pushed it through legislature we could walk away saying our laws are actually /protecting/ our rights instead of dooming them.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 11:52 AM
They teach it in London. They teach about all religions and you have to learn unless your religion forbids it, Jehovah's Witnesses that is. I don't want to offend but this is why some American's are very ignorant. Even about the world around them. Do they teach Geography enough?

Let's not generalize, please.

Schools teach facts. This is not a fact. If people want to be taught Creationism/Intelligent design, take a comparative religion class. Problem solved.