Should Creationism Be Taught in Schools?

@ sheepcat;
The question was for if creationism should be taught in a science classroom alongside evolution, not whether there should be compulsory religion classes. Although I do admit that it's an interesting discussion about whether a religion/philosophy class should be required. Could be interesting since some of the people I've talked to where I live don't actually seem to know much about the religion they claim to be a part of.

@ CallusedSilk
Oh thank god it was you three times. It scared me a little.

Wow, I need to learn to read.
Not at all. Creationism isn't a science, if anything its a belief system. The theory of evolution has some proof, or at least can be logically explained.

@ CallusedSilk

CallusedSilk:

@ Ray Valor
If all that mattered was 'same God' then there'd be a hell of a lot less fighting in the world when it comes to religion. To quote a cliche? The devil is in the details. It always has been and it always will be. The details are what people will use to distinguish themselves, and their religions, and what they will hold dearest to.

Its not what matters, but they do have the same God, they just see him differently. Religion in itself has caused many wars. Each even claiming their God was on their side and why they won.

Hell, some Palestinians are allowed to go back to their home country of the Jews while others can not because they are not Jewish.

Even so much as the detail of what people claim their God did, like you saying your God and my God are the same (This is an example, I am an atheist) except you say yours has a long beard and came to earth, I say mine is bald as the book says and did not come to earth. Boom, that can immediately lead to religion separation. Hell, we have Muslims fighting each other and Jews fighting each other as Christians did all because one ideal is changed or seen differently. Martin Luther was even threatened and people wanted him dead for his view.

So, even the detail of how their God looks can cause huge debates and even wars. it just depends on what that detail is and the people and how they will react.

CallusedSilk:

I'm from Missouri, in the hart of the bible belt. I know that it's not scientific and that's the bulk of my reasoning for not wanting creationism to be taught in a science classroom. However, I threw in the argument about the 'show one, have to show another' idea since I've heard it so many times and so I just automatically smack that one down now. Bad habit since I essentially just sum it up with, "It's not science, so don't put it into a science classroom."

While I agree with, however Missouri is not the heart* of the bible belt. Tennessee would be if anything. And I lived in the bible belt also, but it is not even close to how bad people also make it out too be. It can be bad, but people tend to over do it based on their experience. Its not like say, an atheist, will have a stick shoved through his butt and out his mouth for a different idea. People are a little more civil; then when racism was an issue there

Isn't it funny how the 'Bible Belt' were a lot of Christians live is also were the heat of slavery was at? Makes you wonder about the education system down there.

Seriously, the creationists complained because Cosmos did not show the creations story, complaining it was unfair. You can't even have a scientific show about the universe with out someone complaining. I would not doubt Ken Ham or even Ray Comfort was one of them.

@ sheepcat;
Of course Evolution has proof. That is why it has the title 'theory' in its name. It is a scientific theory. You can not have a scientific theory with out evidence. Hell, you would have to be blind to say it is not real when it takes place in our world.

@ Ray Valor
Seeing them as differently makes them different, don't you see? They may be the 'same' God, but they're not really, not once humans are done with them. Religion at one point served a purpose, and for some people it still does. It actually makes sense that they think their God was on their side, since why would they think otherwise? It'd seem impractical to believe in God and then believe that he failed your side.

The situation with Palestine and Israel is horrifying. Palestine in particular has suffered quite a lot.

Yes, that is how religions differentiate themselves. Sometimes even less than that if you're going into the subsets of those religions. Such as a focus on the virgin Mary being enough to separate baptists from catholics. However, please refrain from calling people that still believe 'moronic'. Am I one of them? No, but your wording is verging on bashing, which is against the rules on this message board.

Missouri is often claimed to be and I live in an area where it is often reflected. People tend to claim how it is based on their experience, and trust me, my experience has been horrendous. I also don't think a situation can be dismissed simply because impaling didn't occur. Also, I did laugh at your past tense of 'when racism was an issue there'. Was an issue? It's still an issue throughout the country, but the south is particularly guilty of that offense. Racism has changed throughout the years, but let's not pretend it's gone. After all, Missouri stopped hanging blacks, and just protect those that shoot them.

Once again 'Christian Nut Jobs' is bashing, so please keep cut it out. I do agree though that it was unnecessary to complain about a science show focusing on science instead of religion. They have the right to voice their complaints though. As an agnostic atheist, I understand your frustration and I share it, and sometimes I do become very angry with the state of things, especially when it comes to religion encroaching on freedom when they're just flat out inaccurate. This is, however, an intellectual discussion and I'd rather not sink to the level of the people we're upset with.

Edited by a moderator.

Edited by a moderator.

@ Shisko
And regardless of whether the people are on the site or not, bashing them isn't allowed. It's in the rules.

The fact of the matter is, the comment calling people moronic, which has since been removed since it is bashing, wasn't clearly defined and regardless of who you're talking about, you're not allowed to say it about people while in this forum.

Regardless of intent, your statements were seen as bashing (because they were) and trying to turn them into something else isn't helpful.

Also once again, I don't care if you were only attacking the people that do truly hateful things. The rules on this forum are that we aren't allowed to bash anyone, and that means regardless of whether we believe they deserve it.

I went to a Catholic school all of K-12. Catholics are not creationists (and actually are - currently - very accepting of science) so we learned about Evolution. I personally have never actually met someone who was/is creationist. Perhaps that's because of the area I grew up in, which is very liberal (I'm from Massachusetts). I'm sure that there are people who believe the bible in a literal sense word-for-word in my area, I just have never met any.

I think that creationism should not be taught in schools. The only evidence for creationism is Scriptures, and unless you're going to a school that is run by these religions (which is another topic, Catholic schools have to follow a certain curriculum to be accredited so should all schools so schools that ignore science altogether should not be a accredited in my opinion) it should be left for a philosophy or religion class. That topic could be discussed in a class like Religions of the World or Present Day Faiths or something.

Not as a valid possibility in a science classroom.

In science, you cannot technically prove a theory, you can only disprove. So saying people are entitled to their own opinion about topics that are backed up by decades upon decades of valid research is technically true, but to have a different opinion you would have to have a crap ton of research to back it up. What research suggests that creationism is valid? (If there is such research, how can you trust it's from a reliable source?)

Also, to teach creationism in a science setting would be saying that those religions are of the same importance to a student's learning as science. Which would be putting those religions above other religions, which would anger all of the people who do not believe in creationism (which I'm sure outnumbers the people who do, with the exception of certain areas).

This would also put the U.S. even farther behind in science. We're already a nation that is in huge need of STEM people, and our education system is awful as far as teaching science goes in comparison to many other nations.

Ray Valor:

Adaptation is evolution. Mutation, Adaptation, etc are all parts of evolution.

An animal changing to adapt to survive is exactly what evolution does.

Evolution is the process of change to or for survival. Well ,that and more. Mutations, Adaptations and many others are all part of the process. If it wasn't, then Natural Selection would not be a real thing.

Evolution simply explains why and how things change as it explains the diversity of species. (Sub-Species included)

No, adaptation is not evolution. Quite the contrary. Evolution is a genetic change, where as an organism that adapts has no change in genetics. For example, if a new highway is built through the middle of a forest, animals may adapt to being cut off from their water source and change their behavior.They didn't evolve, there was no change in genetics. As an alternative example, if a water supply becomes completely unavailable, many organisms would die and drought resistant organisms would reproduce and pass on their drought resistant genes. The genetic change could be evolution.

Have you ever heard of Jean-Baptist Lamarck? He believed that giraffes were able to willfully grow long necks when food was too high to reach. We know that to be false. Animals cannot will themselves to have different genetics. Natural selection favored giraffes that had longer necks, where as giraffes with shorter necks died and were unable to reproduce. Adaptation and evolution may happen simultaneously, but they're not the same. It's a really important distinction that evolution is a gradual genetic change.

Evolution furthers reproduction more so than survival. If that was the case, lifespans would be very long across the board. Instead, evolution is driven by the need to reproduce. Some insects can be born and reproduce within a few days, then die. Evolution hasn't failed them with such a short lifespan because lengthy survival isn't necessary to reproduce.

Ray Valor:

@ CallusedSilk

While I agree with, however Missouri is not the heart* of the bible belt. Tennessee would be if anything. And I lived in the bible belt also, but it is not even close to how bad people also make it out too be. It can be bad, but people tend to over do it based on their experience.

Another missourian, it really is horribly restrictive and antiprogressive. You don't have to take it at my experience, just look at the disgusting, bigoted laws in bible belt states. Just because you personally haven't experienced prejudice doesn't mean its "not that bad".

I've always heard of the Ozarks in Missouri called the heart of the bible belt. Further evidenced by the fact that most schools don't teach evolution properly and have creationism curriculum.

@ Kurtni
Actually, adaptation drives evolution. At least, that's what we learned in AP Biology. If adaptation is necessary for the species to continue to thrive, those individuals who cannot adapt will not live and therefore not be able to produce offspring and the adapted animals will have the upper hand and their genetics will be passed on making that particular gene more prominent in the population of the species and eventually (after a very long period of time) the species will evolve.

So while adaptation is not evolution, without adaptation there would be no evolution.

@ Kurtni

== "Another missourian, it really is horribly restrictive and antiprogressive." ==

I'm sorry? Another Missourian? Why do you say that? Are you implying you are one or that I am one? I can not tell based how you wrote that.

== "You don't have to take it at my experience, just look at the disgusting, bigoted laws in bible belt states." ==

Again, I have lived there. I know the laws of some of the places. But this statement worries me based on what you say below. Yes, some have bad laws, but they are not as bad as many people make it. That does not mean they are not bad, but I have seen people who are anti-theist WAY over exaggerate the state of the situation they where in.

And I am talking about the people who see a ten commandment plague in the city hall or whatever, and make a statue of another religion knowing it will make the others mad, just to prove a point instead of using their money for more productive things. This does not imply that it is not bad there in anyway, obviously it is and has its issues. Have you seen Jesus Camp? I greatly dislike the movie. The movie makes itself look really bad to the Christian religion because how it goes down. But, they are not my kids, but I don't really think ti is as bad as what others have sometimes told me.

"Just because you personally haven't experienced prejudice doesn't mean its "not that bad"."

funny, because you stated above that I do not have to take your experience, yet you think I am wrong because I simply have not experienced it, but you have, so it really is that bad. All I have to do is look at the laws.

However, this is where you greatly are wrong. I have not experienced what you have, but this does not disprove my point. I lived in Texas, mainly in Dallas and Northern Texas, been to Oklahoma many times and can say, while they have bad parts, it is not nearly as bad as it is painted to be.

An example of this would be Christopher Hitchans. While I dislike religion, I wont go so far as to say it poisons everything like Hitchans did. He has his experience and I have mine. Based on what I have seen in my lifetime, I can say it does not poison everything, but has major issues in its history and into day's world. But claiming based on his history that it does poison everything is a strong point I think is too much.

In this case, this would be my experience vs yours it seems. You think I am wrong because I have no experienced anything? Wrong. I have dealt with things, but I can also look at it rationally and ask myself... Is it REALLY that bad? No, I can walk outside and I will not be harmed. I might be ridiculed, but better then having my head chopped off in Saudi Arabia.

Trust me, I have felt the pressure, I have had to also deal with being in the state Rick Parry is. Have you seen this guy? He makes Texas look bad because of how he is. Shoot, look up his campaign video. Most disliked YouTube video in the world I believe.

Yes, the Bible Belt has it's bad parts, but from claims people make, that does not mean it is literally a bad place. Take for example the Westboro Baptist church. Yea... They do things I disagree with, but you can also try to ignore it. People have their idea there is no good there and or it is always bad because you hear others experiences, but, like theirs, I am always saying mine.

It is bad, but you can live there and be fine. Religion was never shoved in my face unless I was dumb enough to walk by a church. In which case many of the people there were OK with me being me, they told me I should be saved or I will learn later, but that doesn't bother me. They are just words to me. When I hear of many stories of murder, people being jumped/beat up, raped, mugged, etc for BEING an atheist or whatever, THEN I will agree. But if it is just "I will pray for you" You are lost." "You where raped as a child." "You are simply possessed." "It is a phase." "You secular scum." etc, I will state again, it is not as bad as people make it too seem. Many atheist I know live in the bible belt, even outside of Texas and are completely fine, you just hear of the ones that are not.

People complain, learn to deal with it or ignore it. It is what I did and it never bothered me.

I once sat down with a religious person and told them I was an atheist and I knew what they where doing was out of good faith and that they really wanted me to be saved. They understood when I asked them to leave me alone with the religion stuff and they where fine.

Heck, I am even a member of the 700 club. I just don't pay.

I even let the guys pray for me as I knew it was for good reason, even if I thought was BS. I don't agree with Pat, but does not mean I don't use them as a means to keep up with what current religious orgs. are up too.

Think of me as a double agent. 00A.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_Belt

In short, my point still stands and I disbelieve in ones opinion of the law and how they where treated to completely debunk my comment on it not being bad simply because they claim nothing ever happened too me. I simply will fly to to my house, take you to my father's parents house and let you see for yourself how I am treated.

As I said before, -- " It can be bad, but people tend to over do it based on their experience." --

No, kids should not to be taught to believe in something that's not real. To me, creationism is just as rational as any cult idea of how we got here. If you're going to teach that, you're going to have to teach them that we might also be the ghosts of dead aliens that came here from the war of some other planet or whatever it is that scientologists believe too.

@ Ray Valor
I replied to you in the Christians thread because this discussion was off topic.

theory of relativity:

@ Kurtni
Actually, adaptation drives evolution. At least, that's what we learned in AP Biology. If adaptation is necessary for the species to continue to thrive, those individuals who cannot adapt will not live and therefore not be able to produce offspring and the adapted animals will have the upper hand and their genetics will be passed on making that particular gene more prominent in the population of the species and eventually (after a very long period of time) the species will evolve.

So while adaptation is not evolution, without adaptation there would be no evolution.

Adaptation is not a genetic change. Adaptation is a change in behavior. Evolution is a gradual genetic change. The previous example I gave was this:

Quote

For example, if a new highway is built through the middle of a forest, animals may adapt to being cut off from their water source and change their behavior to use a different water source.They didn't evolve, there was no change in genetics. As an alternative example, if a water supply becomes completely unavailable, many organisms would die and drought resistant organisms would reproduce and pass on their drought resistant genes. The genetic change could be evolution.

Another example would be peppered moth's. During the industrial evolution, black peppered moths were more likely to survive and reproduce than white peppered moths because the black peppered moth's were camouflaged. This is an example of a genetic change in a population driven by natural selection, not adaptation. The black moths were always black, they didn't change willfully to be black, they didn't adapt. Their genetics were just more favorable to the conditions.

I'm not saying adaptation and evolution are unrelated, just that they're not the same thing. One of the many misconceptions religious people have is "monkey's didn't turn into people, that's crazy talk" and that's because they don't know what it actually means to evolve. They're mistaking adaptation for evolution.

I think creationism should absolutely not be taught in schools. If you want to learn about Christian beliefs about how the world came to be, then go to church. Church is for learning religious theories; school is not, and it should never be.

Also, I heartily support the idea that religion and science need not cancel each other out. There's no reason people can't accept both the idea of a Creator and the idea that things evolve/have evolved. I don't understand the huge division. (And I've seen people being dicks on both sides actually. Like Christians that I know being close minded and intolerant and atheists that I know doing the exact same thing right back. Just, why, guys? Why?)

But yeah, that stuff should not be taught in schools. Definitely not.

Nope. If you want your child to learn about any religion, send them to a school that follows the beliefs, take them to church or teach them yourself. I think it’s much more important for children to focus on things like literacy and numeracy, rather than have god of the gaps arguments drilled into their heads.

One option is to join a club or organization. This will give you something to do and someone with whom to share your interests. It's also important to network with people outside of your class and dormitory – this will give you access to new opportunities and people who can help you grow as a person and also you can find more info with PapersOwl legit services there. Lastly, make sure that you're involved in as many events as possible – this will expose you to new people and opportunities, while also building bonds between you and those around you.