Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution?

[Vaporeon4evr]

Would you point one out for me? It's certainly not "biblical", and as a metaphor with no basis it still fails.

Tyrant Tar already covered this. Evolution explains progression, while creationism explains origin. In all honesty, there really shouldn't be a debate over the two; it's an apples-and-oranges deal. Just because one is true does not mean that the other is false. Hence, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[RedJirachi]

Of course not.Creationsim has been debunked,it kinda would be like if we teached about Classical Greek four elements

 

[invaderdim]

they should be taught together, but creationism should be taught as a belief and not taught as though it is completely true

 

[MrPostman]

Tyrant Tar already covered this. Evolution explains progression, while creationism explains origin. In all honesty, there really shouldn't be a debate over the two; it's an apples-and-oranges deal. Just because one is true does not mean that the other is false. Hence, they are not mutually exclusive.

I still fail to see the wording that would allow you to make the claim the beginning of Genesis (and only Genesis, apparently) is a metaphor. (Unless it's "Crap, this is blatanly wrong. Better hitch on science's coattails so I can still belieeeeve!)

The "long day creationism" thing brought up (God's days arbitrarily equal millions and billions of years somehow) still fails. I'll show you why if you can't see it.

Last note, they are exclusive because science is investigative and corrects itself and creationism just makes a statement w/o evidence of any sort. Either one or the other happened, not both.

 

[Night_Walker]

As I've said before in other threads, Creationism is religious theory masquerading as science it should never be allowed into school science classes. If parents want their children to believe in a god/supernatural creator then they can take them to Church.

It's sad that we're still arguing about this matter 150 years after Darwin published "On the Origin of Species"

 

[Raines]

Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?

 

[Mini Minun]

Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? (b/c she's both invisible and pink!!!)

It's totally irresponsible and a piece of utter rubbish if you're trying to teach Young-Earth Creationism (the prime example is Kent Hovind), or Old-Earth, or Intelligent Design. All of them don't have a shred of evidence. It's not something that should be taught in a classroom. In church, maybe, but not in school.

Evolution, meanwhile, deals with a thoroughly reliable theory, and it's perfectly good science. That's something that should be taught in the classroom.

If people want to believe in that toher one where they say God created the universe, then left the Earth to evolve, that's their freedom.

 

[Pokemon-Dratini]

Absolutely no way should vreationism be taught in the classroom, a science class is a SCIENCE class not a battle ground for religous preference, you are supposed to learn what science has discovered and about the world through a scholarly perspective, be that as it may, if someone is curioous about creationism they could go ask a preist or a teacher who specifies in that area, I know of a friend of mine who is a devout christian and asked questions about that in our biology class and my teacher was very respectful and told her that the class was not ment for such arguements.

 

[Charmbracelet]

Creationism IS taught.

In High School I studied a subject called "Religious Studies", where I learned about all the major and minor religions of the world and their theory of how we came about.

Also at my University, people can choose to major or minor in religious studies, philosphy of religion etc which teach you about the creationism theory and how the monothesitc and polythestic religions teach it.

 

[Pokemon-Dratini]

Creationism IS taught.

In High School I studied a subject called "Religious Studies", where I learned about all the major and minor religions of the world and their theory of how we came about.

Also at my University, people can choose to major or minor in religious studies, philosphy of religion etc which teach you about the creationism theory and how the monothesitc and polythestic religions teach it.

well if theres a specific class for then yeah thats perfectly fine

 

[Erienne]

Bad idea. In no way should creationism in any form be taught in public schools, since it is religious theory, and on top of that, Judeo-Christian theory. Religion should not be taught in public schools, especially some bogus theory that has so much evidence against it it is truly astounding. Past the Bible, there is evidence of some Great Flood sorta, in a lot of religions, but this is probably due to either a big tsunami around 3000 BCE that washed the ground up, or a comet. So no, creationism shouldn't be taught in any form in science class. However, it is perfectly fine in a class of religious studies, provided creation stories from other religions are taught as well.

 

[kabzy]

Depending on what age you are, you shud eventually be allowed a choice as to what kind of subjects you want to take. IMO i think that both should be taught, as it helps you to understand other views, as whether you like it or not, there are many people out there with opposing views to you.

 

[GhostAnime]

It has nothing to do with learning opposing views. You should learn facts in science class, and religion in religious classes.

 

[kabzy]

It has nothing to do with learning opposing views. You should learn facts in science class, and religion in religious classes.

You're right, but he doesnt say anything about religion being taught in science classes. He just says that both are being taught in a school.

 

[J.T.]

You're right, but he doesnt say anything about religion being taught in science classes. He just says that both are being taught in a school.

So keep it in a religion class. No one's saying that creation shouldn't be taught period - they're saying it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution in a science class.

 

[Erienne]

So keep it in a religion class. No one's saying that creation shouldn't be taught period - they're saying it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution in a science class.

It can be taught in comparative religions if in public school; I want to hear in the same class the Hindu story of creation, the Zoastrian story of creation, the Mesopotamian story of creation, etc. I don't believe that just because a certain creation story has over 2 billion adherents it should get special privileges.

 

[J.T.]

I agree, but at some point you'll probably have to draw the line, because there are just too many creation stories out there. Such classes should definitely teach the creation stories of major religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., but it's going to be next to impossible to discuss all religious creation stories in-depth.

 

[Erienne]

I think such classes should be reserved either for a religious school or college, assuming you want to go into that field. But yes, I agree that unless you want to take up anthropology one should just learn the creation stories of surviving religions. However, if you are learning comparative religions, knowing ancient religious stories will help you to understand the stories of modern religions (it's not like the stories of any known religion were new ideas, but menageries of the folk beliefs in the areas in it and areas around it).