Creation in the classroom

[Shadow Wolf]

My argument is that if people defend for the First Amendment to extend to religious practice in public schools....such as people claiming to follow the Church of Body Modification, bowing to Mecca during the course of school, etc. than they must also logically defend those whose religious teachings include creationism as a science.

It isn't science though. It can't even be tested. All evidence shows the earth, and even humans, are older than 10,000 years. That is why it shouldn't be in a science text book, or discussed in the class room. Body modifications and praying towards Mecca aren't interfering with curriculum. If someone wants to believe in Creationism, it's there right but it isn't science. And because it isn't science there is simply no place for it a science classroom.
The girl with the nose ring just had a piercing in her nose. People who want Creationism to be taught in the class room are wanting to worsen our already poor school systems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The difference is, the young girl's nose ring doesn't affect anyone else. Changing the curriculum in a science class affects every single student. I wouldn't have a problem if creationists wanted to use the same system that we use for sex-ed. Send home a form with students for their parents to sign and when evolution comes up in science class those students can go to another room where the janitor will teach them Creationism. This way, everyone can be happy. Regular students can get an unhindered education and creationists can continue to marry their cousins in total ignorant bliss.

I think that is a terrible idea. Legions of parents would not sign it, and very few kids would not learn anything about evolution, and they can carry on and might pass the torch of ignorance down to the next generation. People just need to educate themselves about the scientific method, evolution, and natural selection. Then Creationism/ID in the classroom won't be an issue anymore.

 

[Venatoris]

I think that is a terrible idea. Legions of parents would not sign it

that's exactly the point.

and very few kids would not learn anything about evolution, and they can carry on and might pass the torch of ignorance down to the next generation.

This is already happening and will continue to happen regardless of what the school curriculum is. If they want to live in the dark, I say we let them.

People just need to educate themselves about the scientific method, evolution, and natural selection. Then Creationism/ID in the classroom won't be an issue anymore.

You have been posting here for 5 years, honestly, what do you think the odds are for that happening?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have been posting here for 5 years, honestly, what do you think the odds are for that happening?

Not any time soon, but in America that has slowly been an increase in the people who accept evolution, and a slow decline in the number of Evangelicals.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You have been posting here for 5 years, honestly, what do you think the odds are for that happening?

It worked for me. I was a young-earth creationist when I joined RF. After reading the evolution vs. creationism threads here for a while I decided to stop taking AIG's word for it and actually educate myself on what evolution was really all about.

Needless to say, I'm not a creationist anymore.

 

[evolved yet?]

It worked for me. I was a young-earth creationist when I joined RF. After reading the evolution vs. creationism threads here for a while I decided to stop taking AIG's word for it and actually educate myself on what evolution was really all about.

Needless to say, I'm not a creationist anymore.

I did not know that! Amazing how people can change, how long did it take to go from fundamentalist to Anti-theist?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I did not know that! Amazing how people can change, how long did it take to go from fundamentalist to Anti-theist?

About a year and a half. I started having doubts about my faith so I really delved into it and wanted to see if the stories I'd been raised with could stand up to skeptical inquiry.

They couldn't, and in February of this year I became an Atheist.

It's funny, I was actually training to become a minister when the whole thing started...

(And before anyone asks or asserts it, evolution was NOT a factor in my rejection of theism.)

 

[Atomist]

My argument is that if people defend for the First Amendment to extend to religious practice in public schools....such as people claiming to follow the Church of Body Modification, bowing to Mecca during the course of school, etc. than they must also logically defend those whose religious teachings include creationism as a science.

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard... creationism should not be taught as a science because it's not science. if you want to teach it in a religion class... sure go ahead.

About a year and a half. I started having doubts about my faith so I really delved into it and wanted to see if the stories I'd been raised with could stand up to skeptical inquiry.

They couldn't, and in February of this year I became an Atheist.

It's funny, I was actually training to become a minister when the whole thing started...

(And before anyone asks or asserts it, evolution was NOT a factor in my rejection of theism.)

I'll pray for you... or something like that. ;-) It's ironic evolution wasn't a factor for my rejection of theism either , but young earth creationism and talking to a young earth creationism did play a huge role in my rejection of theism.

 

[evolved yet?]

About a year and a half. I started having doubts about my faith so I really delved into it and wanted to see if the stories I'd been raised with could stand up to skeptical inquiry.

They couldn't, and in February of this year I became an Atheist.

It's funny, I was actually training to become a minister when the whole thing started...

(And before anyone asks or asserts it, evolution was NOT a factor in my rejection of theism.)

A little early (about half a year) and I would have just have been there when you changed over.

 

[evolved yet?]

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard... creationism should not be taught as a science because it's not science. if you want to teach it in a religion class... sure go ahead.

From what I have heard it is not good religion and can't be taught in religion either

 

[RedOne77]

From what I have heard it is not good religion and can't be taught in religion either

It's definitely not good theology, and a horrible way to glean your moral-social values from, especially in the 21st century and beyond. However I wouldn't say it cannot be taught in religion class; I learned a little about radical Islam when I took religion. As long as the material taught is done in an objective way, as the movement is a major issue in contemporary politics and such, it would be good to know a little about them.

I myself would love to see creationism in the science classroom, and give it its proper place as a perfect example of pseudoscience so students can compare and contrast real science to fake science.

 

[fantome profane]

From what I have heard it is not good religion and can't be taught in religion either

I think it would be a very good idea to have a pseudo-science class where they could really teach things like creationism.

And yes I am actually being serious about that.

 

[evolved yet?]

I myself would love to see creationism in the science classroom, and give it its proper place as a perfect example of pseudoscience so students can compare and contrast real science to fake science.

Interesting but I wouldn't spend much time on it because it would take up time that could be used for more important subjects.

 

[Atomist]

From what I have heard it is not good religion and can't be taught in religion either

Well it can be a bad religion, still is religion.

 

[Skwim]

II myself would love to see creationism in the science classroom, and give it its proper place as a perfect example of pseudoscience so students can compare and contrast real science to fake science.

And I don't think it merits the recognition.

 

[DarkSun]

What get's me is that those who might defend a student fighting on religious belief grounds to be able to punch holes in their face won't fight on religious belief grounds for creationism taught in the classroom?

It's because the former option affects no one but the individual with the beliefs, the latter option affects a large group of people and the individual.

 

[Atomist]

What get's me is that those who might defend a student fighting on religious belief grounds to be able to punch holes in their face won't fight on religious belief grounds for creationism taught in the classroom?

It would be like saying that if you defend someone's right to say Christianity is ******** you should support the right for someone to teach Christianity is ******** in a religious class.

 

[RedOne77]

Interesting but I wouldn't spend much time on it because it would take up time that could be used for more important subjects.

And I don't think it merits the recognition.

I think there is much to learn from it. Part of being scientifically literate is being able to spot pseudoscience. This is probably the biggest accepted pseudoscience out there, and is a very good example of religious pseudoscience. So I say teach creationism/ID alongside evolution and have students learn why it is pseudoscience and why evolution is real science.

 

[Noaidi]

I think there is much to learn from it. Part of being scientifically literate is being able to spot pseudoscience. This is probably the biggest accepted pseudoscience out there, and is a very good example of religious pseudoscience. So I say teach creationism/ID alongside evolution and have students learn why it is pseudoscience and why evolution is real science.

You have a point regarding highlighting pseudoscience, but I wouldn't go as far as teaching ID. I'm all for discussing it within a science class as and when it arises, but to devote designated time to ID detracts from teaching the required curriculum.

 

[RedOne77]

You have a point regarding highlighting pseudoscience, but I wouldn't go as far as teaching ID. I'm all for discussing it within a science class as and when it arises, but to devote designated time to ID detracts from teaching the required curriculum.

Most of the required curriculum is made up by people who are in education and don't really understand what students need to know. At least here in the U.S., I think the education system needs to be completely redone; better education for teachers and having kids learn useful material in a productive way, we're far enough behind other countries as it is.

I think a modified curriculum that discusses pseudoscience will make the general public more scientifically literate without detracting from useful content.