Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution?

[Vernikova]

I don't believe that any religious teaching at all should be mandatory in schools. Period. If they wanted to offer certain religious classes as elective subjects, then that's cool, but no one has any business teaching a religious ideal alongside a scientific theory/fact.

I agree with this. It just seems like a waste of time and, personally, I wouldn't want to learn the way that any religious group think that they came to be.

 

[Ethan]

That's not true. The idea of a young earth is relatively new and came about when that guy, forget his name, tried to figure out the age of the earth by adding the ages of the prophets. Or some such nonsense. It involved geneologies. Genesis doesn't give an age for the earth, it just says that the Creation took seven days. Furthermore, old earth Creationists like to say that since the sun wasn't created on the first day, you can't really say how long a day is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

According to wikipedia (which is always right) young earth creationsim predates the protestant reformation. 800 plus years back is hardly new.

 

[42]

No. I went to a catholic school where it was taught and a public school where it wasn't. I looked up the curriculum of some other catholic schools that tought it, and I can easily state the ones that didn't teach it gave more educational opportunities to students.

Teaching creationism means cutting out something else. At the catholic schools, this meant a very important class that teaches about something catholics frown apon: sex ed. The lack of the knowledge of how to use a condom, masturbait, orgasm, and other such things can lead to extremely embarassing ways of aquiring this knowledge as well as obtaining false knowledge. It forces us to get knowledge from the media, which generally is a bad idea.

While I believe that God created evolution, I don't believe that creationism should be taught in schools-an over amount of religion leads to not wanting to go to church, which is a sin to Catholics, so it's very contradictive. I do, however, believe that courses teaching creationism should be allowed to be advertised in school.

 

[GhostAnime]

Tch. And yes, you can refer to them as major theories

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Why are teachers forbidden from briefly explaining these major theories to a classroom? You don't have to preach the Gospel to explain creation to a group of children. *rolls eyes*

No, you can't because it is not scientific. Please learn what a theory is. Of course, creationism can be taught in something like philosophy, but not ALONG Evolution.

Besides, there isn't really a precise way to teach creationism, due to the conflict between other cultures' approaches to creation.

Which is just another reason why it shouldn't be taught. It can show favoritism.

Creationism lacks the experiment stage of the scientific method. But, then again, so do so many other aspects of science-

Like what?

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

No, you can't because it is not scientific. Please learn what a theory is.

Why don't you learn what a theory is?

The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.

Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.

Wikipedia just said you made a mistake.

The term theory does not apply only to science.

 

[GhostAnime]

The term theory does not apply only to science.

Obviously. That wasn't my point. My point was that they both aren't the same type of "Theory". Creationism is not a scientific theory; but a theory in layman's terms.

It is not the same as Evolution.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

Obviously. That wasn't my point. My point was that they both aren't the same type of "Theory". Creationism is not a scientific theory; but a theory in layman's terms.

It is not the same as Evolution.

Good point. I'm just being a nitpicky b*tch today.

 

[godudette]

Like what?

Once again, lack of reading makes you ask pointless questions that I already answered. So I will provide additional examples for you.

You cannot experimentally test how the world may end. You cannot experimentally test how the world was made. You cannot experimentally test what would happen if seventeen nuclear bombs went off simultaneously around the globe... well, you could, but wouldn't everyone be dead?

Which is just another reason why it shouldn't be taught. It can show favoritism.

It can show favoritism if you only choose one. But if you had read my rebuttal, I asked how hard it was to propose to a classroom that an outside being created the world. I never specified which creation story. Just proposed one of the major philosophical theories of the day.

 

[GhostAnime]

You cannot experimentally test how the world may end. You cannot experimentally test how the world was made.

I don't think you understand the idea of a testable hypothesis.

If it is testable, that means there is a clear scientific path that one COULD do.

An example of a non-testable hypothesis: Do angels exist? Where do scientists even start? They have no leads and no evidence.

An example of a testable hypothesis: The examples you listed. Some of that can actually be simulated (nuclear bombs). As for how the world was made, you can somewhat test that too. Abiogenesis has a few famous experiments (I keep forgetting the name though), but once again, it's all through simulations.

In short: it IS possible to test the things you listed. All of those are scientific questions, and are definitely in the realm of the scientific world.

It can show favoritism if you only choose one. But if you had read my rebuttal, I asked how hard it was to propose to a classroom that an outside being created the world. I never specified which creation story. Just proposed one of the major philosophical theories of the day.

As long as it's not in a science classroom I don't think many people would care, but at the same time you have to be careful when addressing stuff like this; especially at a high school level.

 

[Jaden - Champion Trainer]

I don't believe creationism specifically should be taught in schools, but rather there should be an alternative presented in the form of a "religion" class that basically allows a student a different perspective than a scientist's.

 

[Aquadon]

Creationism should not be taught ALONGSIDE Evolution, for a few reasons. The major one I think however is that Creationism is Religion, and Evolution is Science (Biology?).

I'm actually taking a mandatory religion class right now (Catholic College does that), and it's not that bad. Granted I come from a fairly religious background, but I enjoy even the parts that are non-Christian. I know most people aren't too fond of it, but I think that it's not terrible to have a well-rounded knowledge of different opinions.

 

[DarkWobbuffet]

I don't think creationism OR evolution should be taught in public schools. I don't think children should be forced to be taught something that goes against their religion. That's what private religion schools are for.

 

[Sadib]

If we allow Creationism, we might as well allow Astrology and other pseudo-sciences too.

 

[J.T.]

I don't think creationism OR evolution should be taught in public schools. I don't think children should be forced to be taught something that goes against their religion.

Okay, so because someone might get offended by the idea of being taught evolution, it should flat-out not be taught to anyone, despite being a widely-accepted scientific theory with an important role in science classes?

Let's extend that religious beliefs thing. Sex ed shouldn't be taught to children, some people might not want their kids being exposed to such smut! The Holocaust? Those who deny it ever happened may get offended. And that's just two examples.

If you can spin it off in such a way, parents could, following your logic, get absolutely anything in the school curriculum banned under the grounds that "IT OFFENDS MAH RELIGION".

 

[ComelyCleric~]

Creationism has no scientific value or value pertaining to the developing study of technological society whatsoever. For this reason, religion should not be taught in schools. What would be the point? How could these teachings help and inspire children to improve society? Would it teach them the foundations of science? No, it would not help our society at all, and if anything, would set us back, to the teachings of the 19th century, before advances in technology had been made and we could actually understand more about the modern world. So, in short, no, creationism should not be taught in schools in my opinion.

 

[Clever-Mird]

Evolution is fact. Scientists have studied fish in a stream and got rid of all the predators and in a month their DNA had changed through evolution to make them more basic. In other words, evolution happens in front of our eyes every day.

 

[J.T.]

Evolution is fact. Scientists have studied fish in a stream and got rid of all the predators and in a month their DNA had changed through evolution to make them more basic. In other words, evolution happens in front of our eyes every day.

Some people would claim that's not enough; they apparently need to see one animal give birth to another one. I don't agree with them and quite frankly it seems like they're really grasping for excuses, but yeah, that's not gonna prove anything to them.

 

[Aquadon]

Creationism has no scientific value or value pertaining to the developing study of technological society whatsoever. For this reason, religion should not be taught in schools. What would be the point? How could these teachings help and inspire children to improve society? Would it teach them the foundations of science? No, it would not help our society at all, and if anything, would set us back, to the teachings of the 19th century, before advances in technology had been made and we could actually understand more about the modern world. So, in short, no, creationism should not be taught in schools in my opinion.

I feel like it would be the same reason 'Spanish' or 'French' class would be taught: so you could learn about other people's culture, traditions, etc. Either that, or my Spanish class in public school was 100% bogus.

All right, it was 50% bogus...

 

[Lucos]

What is there to teach about creationism? Honestly, that's what I don't understand about creationism. It's basically another way of saying "God created all of us". There is nothing to "teach" about that. In my primary school I got "teached" creationism, but that was just 1 week, one exclusive week where we roughly skipped through the whole bible. It was fun, in a kinda-fun-but-not-really sort of way, but most of the time it was just reading and story-telling, not really something I would call "teaching".

It's good to know whats inside that book called the bible, since so many people follow it with whole their hearth, but I don't think we should place creationism next to evolution. Creationism should just be a minor, small topic in school, like in my primary school.

 

[the jman]

Teacher:Humans evolved from monkeys.
Teacher:God created the earth and everything in it the way it is.

=X