Should Creationism Be Taught in Schools?

Kurtni Manson:

That's very true.

I don't know if this is the norm but in both the biology classes I took (In high school, not college. ) when we got to evolution my teacher kind of gave a "disclaimer" that you were entitled to your own beliefs, and learning about evolution didn't mean you couldn't be a creationist. She compared it to learning about the beliefs of various political parties in a government class, and how that didn't mean you couldn't belong to your party. I feel like that's a fair acknowledgement, but I don't know if that's the norm for biology classes.

The difference being in biology you are taught only evolution, while in government you're taught all sides of the field.

And I originally misworded my first post.. I didn't mean to come off as creationism being one single, christian belief. I don't think I mentioned christianity at all... I think you guys did, but anyways, creationism can be taught in subsections with the different theories in it.

No one is forcing you to accept it, you are just being educated that theres a different theory that is widely accepted. Plus, you'd like to be educated in the details that other people talk about, right? Because I think with uneducated people on the subject, they assume what it means as a broad term instead of the individual theories in it.

IDK my two cents.

^
So what class do you think it should be taught in?

zazoo:

And I originally misworded my first post.. I didn't mean to come off as creationism being one single, christian belief. I don't think I mentioned christianity at all... I think you guys did, but anyways, creationism can be taught in subsections with the different theories in it.

What exactly would you teach? Have people read religious texts? There is no science there, which is why evolution and creationism shouldn't be paired up against each other. One is science and one is not.

I don't think in a public school, you can teach about various creation theories under the presumption that they may be correct- that's against separation of church and state. Not to mention confusing, as many are at odds with each other and individual creationists have individual interpretations.

And to call creationism widely accepted is misleading, because evolution is just as widely accepted.

^
Not to mention for some people, like myself, creationism and evolution aren't theories at odds with each other. I accept both.

Not really, no.

I don't think it nearly has enough evidence behind it to even be considerable. The only place it could be taught in is RE classes.

In an R.S. class as a specific Christian belief, then sure. We did creation stories in R.S.

Certainly not in any other class. Although evolution is taught as theory and not as fact, it's not a religious belief, while creationism is. Therefore, I don't see why it should be taught in biology or anything.

As has already been said in this thread, I say no. You may argue whether or not Evolution is actually true, but it has scientific evidence, something which creationism lacks entirely. So I'd say the two don't belong in the same classroom.

Creation can and is taught though, at religious schools, and in classes on specific religions. That is perfectly acceptable.

zazoo:

creationism can be taught in subsections with the different theories in it.

How many individual theories do you think they should teach?

Well, I went to a state-funded (public) Catholic school. We got taught about Creationism in RE and then my Biology teacher made loads of snarky comments about the RE department and said how much it annoyed her The general consensus from my RE teacher wasn't that God actually made the world in seven days though, her argument was that God caused evolution. So it wasn't as radical and illogical as it could have been, tbh.

As a wise man once said,
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein

zazoo:

The difference being in biology you are taught only evolution, while in government you're taught all sides of the field.

Because evolution is science, and biology is a scientific field in a science class.

Creationism (of any sort or religion) is not science. In any way.

Creationism and evolution are in completely different fields and shouldn't be taught side by side.

I'm not even talking about the debate on whether one is fact or belief or not, at all, even. Just based on what these theories are and how these different fields arrive at information.

Science is based on hypotheses which are tested, experimented, and disproved (or not). The ONLY way something can even be an hypothesis is if it is able to be disproved. If there is no hypothetical factor that can disprove it, then you don't have a suitable hypothesis to be tested and must come up with a different one.

Religion, religious beliefs, and theories such as creationism are based on belief and possibility, and much of the time are hailed on the fact that much of it cannot be disproved. There is no testing, no experiment, no way of testing or disproving any of it.

They are in two very separate fields of study and research (which ends up being the very reason they can coexist side by side in belief, as many people do believe both because neither theory is necessarily contradicting at all) and should be treated as such and not taught side by side.

There is a huge difference between what exactly is taught on evolution from state to state. Like in my state, Pennsylvania, there is a focus on human evolution as well as the evolution of animals. Some states do not put a focus or don't even mention human evolution. While other states present misinformation or don't put a focus on evolution as a whole at all. Here is a map of where human evolution is taught or not taught etc. (Iowa is purple because they do not have a state standard for evolution being taught.)

Also, my personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) aside, there is simply not enough evidence for creationism from a purely scientific standpoint. It is not a theory. It is an untestable hypothesis at best. Just because a startling number of people believe it does not make it any more true or valid scientifically. Therefore, keep it out of public schools.

Wikipedia.:

(Iowa is purple because they do not have a state standard for evolution being taught.)

Why does this not surprise me? (I'm from Iowa.)

One more thing I would like to point out, the theory of evolution in no way addresses how exactly life first came about. How scientists think life came about is called abiogenesis. My biology class actually took a whole semester to cover genetics, animal evolution, and human evolution. My biology teacher made sure to teach us that these are two very different fields within the science world.

On a side note, my biology teacher was actually very religious. She was Catholic, went to church every Sunday, etc. I only know this because I asked her when we first started the unit what her religious beliefs were and if they would interfere with how she taught the material. In retrospect, I suppose it was a bit rude of me. In any case, she responded that while she was Catholic and actively participated in her religion it would not interfere with her teaching. She told us that religion did not belong in a public classroom nor did her personal opinions, therefore, she would teach us what was accepted as the scientific truth as defined by the evidence found with as neutral a stance she could muster. She is one of my favorites teachers to this day, and there need to be more teachers like her.

I think they should mention intelligent design in science classes, just to point out why it isn't science, why it isn't helpful for making testable predictions, and why evolution is considered a scientific theory and can help make testable predictions.

Creationism is not a scientific paradigm. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but they shouldn't both be credited with explaining the same thing. Religion gives people something that often, science cannot. And science explains things that often, scripture cannot.

Personally, I see religion and science as able to supplement each other, but when you're teaching someone about science, how it works, how your body is able to do things it does... Inteligent Design doesn't really provide an explanation.

Evolution should be taught in science classes because there is scientific evidence to support it. I don't see any reason for creationism to be taught alongside it since the creationism theory is not at all science-based, and it'd be pushing religion in schools. Religion is something that should be learned through personal interest, faith, or through your family or church. It's not public school's place.

Mike Dirnt.:

I think they should mention intelligent design in science classes, just to point out why it isn't science, why it isn't helpful for making testable predictions, and why evolution is considered a scientific theory and can help make testable predictions.

But there a lot of things that aren't science and I don't think we need to waste our time pointing them all out in science class.

dru's konstantine.:

But there a lot of things that aren't science and I don't think we need to waste our time pointing them all out in science class.

Yeah, but nobody's trying to argue that evolution shouldn't be taught because Buddhists believe in re-incarnation or because my pants are red. This is at least relevant to the teaching of evolution.

That said, I don't agree that we should be taught that intelligent design isn't science. I don't see any reason for people to get angry or offending by the teaching of evolution, personally, but anyone who is against should just be given the option to opt out of class that day, the same way schools allow you to opt out of sex ed class.

LeanneBTNS:

Yeah, but nobody's trying to argue that evolution shouldn't be taught because Buddhists believe in re-incarnation or because my pants are red. This is at least relevant to the teaching of evolution.

That said, I don't agree that we should be taught that intelligent design isn't science. I don't see any reason for people to get angry or offending by the teaching of evolution, personally, but anyone who is against should just be given the option to opt out of class that day, the same way schools allow you to opt out of sex ed class.

I don't think you should be able to opt out of sex ed class and I think opting out of "evolution day" is kind of ridiculous, too. I'm against learning really hard math, but I can't just "opt out".

LeanneBTNS:

Yeah, but nobody's trying to argue that evolution shouldn't be taught because Buddhists believe in re-incarnation or because my pants are red. This is at least relevant to the teaching of evolution.

That said, I don't agree that we should be taught that intelligent design isn't science. I don't see any reason for people to get angry or offending by the teaching of evolution, personally, but anyone who is against should just be given the option to opt out of class that day, the same way schools allow you to opt out of sex ed class.

There's just one problem with that idea... Creationism isn't a science. So, why does it belong in science class? There's also a little thing in the US constitution that promises the separation of church and state...

Science and religion may disagree every now and then, but one should never be confused with the other.