Should Creationism Be Taught in Schools?

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.

Creationism isn't any more or less relevant to Evolution than any other creation-type story.

Seriously. Evolution is the scientifically accepted theory, so it's taught in science class.

It's like any kind of science- constantly changing, but the current theory is the accepted and taught theory. If anything, Darwinism would be taught alongside evolution.

Intelligent design isn't science.
And schools that let you opt out of sex ed frighten me. That's really not a smart thing to do.

Oh how the tides have changed.

This topic sums up what the centuries have done to common knowledge. Once upon a time the Catholic church controlled everything, and creationism was taught as common knowledge. It was treated as fact. Today, however, scientific theory is heralded as the standard that everyone knows. Intelligent design has been reduced to being taught only to the faithful.

LEAF.:

Oh how the tides have changed.

This topic sums up what the centuries have done to common knowledge. Once upon a time the Catholic church controlled everything, and creationism was taught as common knowledge. It was treated as fact. Today, however, scientific theory is heralded as the standard that everyone knows. Intelligent design has been reduced to being taught only to the faithful.

Americans have strange ideas about what the Catholic Church does. Even at the time when On Origin of the Species came out the Catholic Church already rejected the idea of taking the book of Genesis literally and Darwin's book was never banned by the Catholic Church (that is, it was never included in Index Librorum Prohibitorum). Moreover, the Vatican authorities never said that evolution is wrong. Until 1950 when Pope Pius XII said that the Catholic Church is not opposed in any way to scientific research regarding evolution, there were a lot of theological debates about how to reconcile evolution with Catholic dogma, but nobody tried to control everything and exclude the evolution theory from education or the mass media.

The people who did try to do that were American Protestants. Who are the same people who've created the myth of the Catholic Church's evilness in American society.

^I have to agree. There are a few things that I believe that the Catholic Church have...not handled well to put it in its mildest format but the acceptance of evolutionary theory isn't one of them.

I'd say that Protestantism has bred some more dangerous ideas such as "justified sinner" crap. But in general, the Catholic Church's sticky wicket is sexy stuff, not evolution.

Mr W. H.:

Americans have strange ideas about what the Catholic Church does. Even at the time when On Origin of the Species came out the Catholic Church already rejected the idea of taking the book of Genesis literally and Darwin's book was never banned by the Catholic Church (that is, it was never included in Index Librorum Prohibitorum). Moreover, the Vatican authorities never said that evolution is wrong. Until 1950 when Pope Pius XII said that the Catholic Church is not opposed in any way to scientific research regarding evolution, there were a lot of theological debates about how to reconcile evolution with Catholic dogma, but nobody tried to control everything and exclude the evolution theory from education or the mass media.

The people who did try to do that were American Protestants. Who are the same people who've created the myth of the Catholic Church's evilness in American society.

I wasn't talking about any of that, but the information you gave is interesting nontheless.

Evolution versus Creationism aside, there was a time when the Catholic church literally did control all of Europe. Back in the middle ages, that was true. Back then, it was common knowledge that the world began in 4004 BC. That was what I was talking about.

LEAF.:

Mr W. H.:

Americans have strange ideas about what the Catholic Church does. Even at the time when On Origin of the Species came out the Catholic Church already rejected the idea of taking the book of Genesis literally and Darwin's book was never banned by the Catholic Church (that is, it was never included in Index Librorum Prohibitorum). Moreover, the Vatican authorities never said that evolution is wrong. Until 1950 when Pope Pius XII said that the Catholic Church is not opposed in any way to scientific research regarding evolution, there were a lot of theological debates about how to reconcile evolution with Catholic dogma, but nobody tried to control everything and exclude the evolution theory from education or the mass media.

The people who did try to do that were American Protestants. Who are the same people who've created the myth of the Catholic Church's evilness in American society.

I wasn't talking about any of that, but the information you gave is interesting nontheless.

Evolution versus Creationism aside, there was a time when the Catholic church literally did control all of Europe. Back in the middle ages, that was true. Back then, it was common knowledge that the world began in 4004 BC. That was what I was talking about.

It was common knowledge because science hadn't advanced enough to come up with the evolution theory. The EU Committee on Culture, Science and Education report called On Dangers of Creationism in Education says that banning evolution in education is a distinctly American phenomenon and until recently nobody thought that it could ever happen in Europe. However, because of the increased influence of extremist-ish Protestant Christian and Muslim groups there have been several initiatives to get evolution out of school curricula in Europe, but neither of them was successful.

Eizu:

Evolution is. Should Creationism be taught hand in hand as a theory alondside of the theory of evolution?

Your ideas?

I think it should. If you are going to teach one theory, teach the other. People need to be educated.

I agree.
They teach it at my school along with evolution.
I think it's th ebest option to teach both, because for one, you're not being offensive to certain children.
Children who are very religous will not pay attention to the Evolution unit if Creationism isn't taught as well. And vice versa you know?

alexaestelle:

I agree.
They teach it at my school along with evolution.
I think it's th ebest option to teach both, because for one, you're not being offensive to certain children.
Children who are very religous will not pay attention to the Evolution unit if Creationism isn't taught as well. And vice versa you know?

I dunno, creationism is a strictly religious topic where evolution is scientific (even if it is just a theory). I wouldn't expect evolution to be taught in a religion class and creationism should not be taught in science class.

alexaestelle:

I agree.
They teach it at my school along with evolution.
I think it's th ebest option to teach both, because for one, you're not being offensive to certain children.
Children who are very religous will not pay attention to the Evolution unit if Creationism isn't taught as well. And vice versa you know?

Creationism isn't science. It doesn't make any sense to teach it in a science class. And if kids don't pay attention, I guess they'll just bomb the test and learn to pay attention the next time. I was very very religious when we learned about in it Biology and I paid very very close attention because I wanted to poke holes in the theory.

And most people who learn about evolution will be teenagers, not six year olds, which is sort of how your wording sounds.

Your school is basically saying there are two scientific theories, Creationism and Evolution, and that's incorrect. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It shouldn't be taught in science classes. Just like we don't learn math in English class.

I don't think that Creationism should be taught in public schools. If it's a private, religious school, I have no problem with it.

But, being agnostic, I would be offended if, in the public school I go to, a teacher was teaching Creationism as being the proper way humans came to exist. Religion isn't a part of public schooling. If it's a religion class (which typically isn't available in public schools), maybe, but teachers tend to lean away from religious beliefs because of the diversity in public schools.

If Creationism is taught, like any religious belief, as being fact and one student is offended then brings it up with the administration, that teacher could be reprimanded for it.

z o m b i e:

I don't think that Creationism should be taught in public schools. If it's a private, religious school, I have no problem with it.

But, being agnostic, I would be offended if, in the public school I go to, a teacher was teaching Creationism as being the proper way humans came to exist. Religion isn't a part of public schooling. If it's a religion class (which typically isn't available in public schools), maybe, but teachers tend to lean away from religious beliefs because of the diversity in public schools.

If Creationism is taught, like any religious belief, as being fact and one student is offended then brings it up with the administration, that teacher could be reprimanded for it.

I don't understand the double standards between public and private schools. Most students don't choose to go to a private school, they're put into private schools by their parents - and if it's wrong for school to portray religious beliefs as fact to their students it should be wrong for them to do so regardless of whether the students' parents are rich enough to afford private school tuition or not.

Mr W. H.:

I don't understand the double standards between public and private schools. Most students don't choose to go to a private school, they're put into private schools by their parents - and if it's wrong for school to portray religious beliefs as fact to their students it should be wrong for them to do so regardless of whether the students' parents are rich enough to afford private school tuition or not.

It's not a double standard. At least not in the U.S. In the States, it's a matter of legality. It is illegal to teach religion in a public school, whereas it's not in a private school.

dru will save you.:

It's not a double standard. At least not in the U.S. In the States, it's a matter of legality. It is illegal to teach religion in a public school, whereas it's not in a private school.

But the person I was replying to didn't say they're okay with religion being taught in private schools but not in public ones because that's the law. And even if they did, that doesn't explain the double standard from which both they and the law suffer.

Mr W. H.:

But the person I was replying to didn't say they're okay with religion being taught in private schools but not in public ones because that's the law. And even if they did, that doesn't explain the double standard from which both they and the law suffer.

It's only a double standard of the two things being compared are exactly the same. They aren't. One is a public school funded by the government/tax dollars. The other is a private school funded by donors. When things are different and have different characteristics, it's not a double standard.

Now if someone said it was only okay to teach religion in female girls' schools but not boys' schools, that would make sense as a double standard. This isn't.

dru will save you.:

Mr W. H.:

But the person I was replying to didn't say they're okay with religion being taught in private schools but not in public ones because that's the law. And even if they did, that doesn't explain the double standard from which both they and the law suffer.

It's only a double standard of the two things being compared are exactly the same. They aren't. One is a public school funded by the government/tax dollars. The other is a private school funded by donors. When things are different and have different characteristics, it's not a double standard.

Now if someone said it was only okay to teach religion in female girls' schools but not boys' schools, that would make sense as a double standard. This isn't.

The schools might be funded in different ways, but that doesn't mean the students are different. If religion does have a negative effect on students, then it has that effect on students regardless of their income or the way in which their school is funded.

Teach it in a class on the origin and evolution (heh) of religion.

Leave the ideas of science to science, and the ideas of religion to religion.

Mr W. H.:

The schools might be funded in different ways, but that doesn't mean the students are different. If religion does have a negative effect on students, then it has that effect on students regardless of their income or the way in which their school is funded.

I don't think it has a negative effect on students. I think that it has no place in a public school.

Even if an Atheist teen is in a private Catholic high school, they are smart enough to understand that they most likely will be taught religion at some point. It's expected. Not the same thing in a public school.

dru will save you.:

I don't think it has a negative effect on students. I think that it has no place in a public school.

Even if an Atheist teen is in a private Catholic high school, they are smart enough to understand that they most likely will be taught religion at some point. It's expected. Not the same thing in a public school.

But if it became legal to teach religion in public schools, students in the public system would also expect to be taught religion? I really don't see what the issue is.

^ There's a reason why religion would be taught in a private Catholic school. In a public school, there isn't. Whether legal or not, a teen in a public school is more likely to think "why am I having this religion taught to me?" than a teen in a prviate Catholic school.

I don't necessarily see explaining creationism as "educating people", because when you accept creationism as your theory as to how the universe came about, then you have to disregard all the other important things within evolution, and then you have a bunch of students who don't really know anything about how organisms come to be, other than, there might be a God out there who did it. Sorry, but I think that is just a very ignorant way of thinking, when we have so much more proof to account for the theory of evolution.

I'm all for believing that perhaps, God created evolution though, but most people who care enough about this particular subject (creationism vs. evolution in schools) probably don't believe that (and I'm speaking of American creationists.) I think it's really more that a lot of people just don't want to accept that we share a lot of attributes with primates and are ourselves, technically on the same level as animals, just our brains are more developed.

And again, another extreme view, but religion, to me, just has no place in a science classroom (and I am not debating that with anyone, because I will not change my opinion on this), because--and just using the Bible as an example here--the ideas within the Bible are out-dated compared to the scientific advances we have made, and I think that encouraging sticking with these out-dated ideas discourages scientific growth. (Although, most of my morals come from the Bible, but that is entirely different from science.)