Creationism in science lessons

[Ormiston]

Creationism begins with a conclusion then scrambles for evidence to bolster its "conclusion."

...and then trys to squeeze it's way into the classroom.

 

[lunamoth]

I strongly object to teaching religion in the science classroom. Creationism is not science. Perhaps the best way to show this is to use creationism as an example of something that is not a hypothesis (and thus can never become a theory) because it is untestable. Assignment: please give 1) observations that support creationism, 2) predictions that can be made based upon creationism and 3) experiments that can be done to test these predictions.

lunamoth
(Christian and research biologist)

 

[gnostic]

Creationism should only be taught in a religious subject or outside of the school system with their priests, certainly not in science classes.

Beside, right through high school, I was never taught astronomy, let alone the big bang, and that was because there was no astronomy subject. It was never part of my experience in the classroom. And in biology, I was taught genetics, but not evolutionism, so I don't see why Creationists want to force us to learn about Creation Myths.

And that's all it is, a myth. Creationism is nothing more than perpetration of a myth that can be found in most religions in the past, with no basis of facts, except delving into the supernatural.

Anyway, religion (or Creationism) as a subject should only be for people willing to learn about it, they should not be considered as a compulsory subject. I refused to be forced to learn religion in school. If I have to learn about religion, I would prefer to so in my free time, not in the school hours. If people want to learn about religion, then they should go to church, temple or mosque, not in school hours, unless there is actually an elective subject on religion.

 

[Ody]

Yes, they should discuss creationism. These days, with fundamentalism on the rise, a good education should include a solid refutation of creationist claims.

Good point! FRUBALS!

 

[ashai]

Absolute rubbish. This "it's only a theory" mantra demonstrates a remarkable ignorance. Go read a science book.

Ushta

Actually it takes an ignorant boor to display his arrogance, insecurities and fear by attacking and trashing others beliefs, that he cannot grasp


I am sorry for all you must have suffered:sad4: but that does not allow you to belittle and insult others

And much Ushta to you . Certainly you need it
ashai

 

[ashai]

Ushta

As to the question of the thread. The physical sciences deal with hard proofs. The so called social sciences deal with methodologies to explain interactions and behaviors of the human animal

Creationism deals with ORIGINS

Creationism thus cannot be taught in a Science curriculum, its pointless to do so and out of place.

However as a system of belief, it ought to be taught as well as Agnosticism, Atheism, and Non- Creational theism within a separate curriculum Why? Because Science in its methodology and public pronouncements, has gone beyond its role which is testing for physical proof or evidence and has come to support a position that agressively denies the possibility of Creation and Theism

Since Theism cannot be disproven by Science , regardless of how much him and hawing my non-theist friends do, it behooves us, if we are a truly free society, to promote the exchange of ideas and the free choice there of.

That, however, does not belong in a Science classroom,my Creationist friends.

Ushta Ve
Ashai

 

[ChrisP]

The problem then with this is you're opening the door to standardising a cirriculum for something that should be a lifelong pursuit of personal discovery.

Teach the sciences and evolution if you want, but don't teach Big Bang theory... why? because it's almost as ridiculous as "there is a God".

 

[Valjean]

Why is the big bang any more implausible than relativity theory or quantam mechanics, O crunchy one?

 

[ChrisP]

O crunchy one?

:biglaugh:

it isn't. Things are the way they are because they are the way they are.

I don't find it implausible that the "big bang" happened, any more than I find it is implausible that a deity such as the Christian god exists. All that can be said with truth is that there is balance of energy. Is it easy to achieve balance?

 

[c0da]

Good points all, I'm back from reading a science book (thanks Jaywalker) and I have came to the conclusion that science is still as boring as it was when I dropped it to take other subjects at college last year!

Just for the record though, I don't actually believe creationism, I was just trying to create a balanced argument:jiggy:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ushta

Actually it takes an ignorant boor to display his arrogance, insecurities and fear by attacking and trashing others beliefs, that he cannot grasp

I am sorry for all you must have suffered but that does not allow you to belittle and insult others

And much Ushta to you . Certainly you need it
ashai

Babble less. :slap:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good points all, I'm back from reading a science book (thanks Jaywalker) and I have came to the conclusion that science is still as boring as it was when I dropped it to take other subjects at college last year

It shows.

Just for the record though, I don't actually believe creationism, I was just trying to create a balanced argument

Just for the record, there is no equivalence between religious meta-narrative and scientific theory. The latter is, by definition, intersubjectively verifiable and accessible to scientific enquiry. The "balance" you seek to create is cobbled together at the expense of, and in ignorance of, this key distinction, i.e., it is a lie.

 

[Halcyon]

I think people should concentrate more on the true purpose of religion - giving moral purpose and a code of conduct to society.

Arguing about creation is pointless, what good does it do the creationists? Does God like them more? Does believing God created everything change the moral messages in the Bible?

In my opinion people should concentrate on what Jesus (cause its mostly Christians causing this problem) wanted them to do - love thy neighbour - be good people, and stop promoting this pointless gibberish, Jesus would be ashamed of them.

 

[gnostic]

Just for the record though, I don't actually believe creationism, I was just trying to create a balanced argument

Balanced argument? Don't you mean you are playing the "Devil's Advocate"?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Halcyon, that was an excellent post, and I agree 100%. From a religious point of view, arguing about creationism is completely missing the point of their faith.

I still don't understand why some people try to call creationism "science". Creationism is a wonderful religious theory. If a person wants to believe in creationsim for religious reasons, I say, "good for you!" Its not something that I personally subscribe to, but if it works for someone else, then who am I to say that their faith is misplaced?

It seems to me though that some people are not content to believe what they believe just based on faith. I don't know if their faith isn't strong enough or what, but people who try to call creationism science are just trying to validate their beliefs in the real world, which cannot be done for any religion. This also removes the need for faith. If something is proven, or if it gathers evidence, one does not need to have "faith" to accept it, right?

Creationism is simply not science, in every sense of what science is. I find it absolutely absurd when people try to claim that it is. It has no place in the science classroom, and I hope that my country, (USA) can continue to see that.

 

[michel]

Halcyon, that was an excellent post, and I agree 100%. From a religious point of view, arguing about creationism is completely missing the point of their faith.

I still don't understand why some people try to call creationism "science". Creationism is a wonderful religious theory. If a person wants to believe in creationsim for religious reasons, I say, "good for you!" Its not something that I personally subscribe to, but if it works for someone else, then who am I to say that their faith is misplaced?

It seems to me though that some people are not content to believe what they believe just based on faith. I don't know if their faith isn't strong enough or what, but people who try to call creationism science are just trying to validate their beliefs in the real world, which cannot be done for any religion. This also removes the need for faith. If something is proven, or if it gathers evidence, one does not need to have "faith" to accept it, right?

Creationism is simply not science, in every sense of what science is. I find it absolutely absurd when people try to claim that it is. It has no place in the science classroom, and I hope that my country, (USA) can continue to see that.

Unfortunately, that malaise has spread to England....................
I would never have believed it, had it not been in print.

BHA: State schools permitted to teach creationism, spread religion across the curriculum

Tue, 07 Mar 2006

The British Humanist association (BHA) has welcomed the Channel Four documentary, ‘The New Fundamentalists’, which yesterday highlighted many of the dangers posed by those on the extreme of Christian evangelism. Most timely was the film’s investigation of practices and teaching within the Vardy academies in the North-East of England .

The BHA assisted the programme makers with research on this aspect of their film, which comes as the government’s Education Bill – which aims to introduce yet further ‘independence’ in state schools – approaches its second reading in Parliament.

Since 2002, the British Humanist Association (BHA) has been in the forefront of campaigns against the spread of academies controlled by religious interest groups, focusing on many of the aspects also covered in the documentary:

- The fact that these schools are state-funded, and represent the only local school available to many parents . (Parents in the documentary made the point that they had no choice but to send their children to the academy.)

- The negative effects on children of their disciplinary policies and school rules. (Children in the documentary were expelled for smoking outside of school, and denied education; parents related that girls were not allowed to leave the classroom, even when having their periods.)

- The fact that the high levels of expulsion in these academies offers an explanation of why they may achieve higher grades. (The high rate of exclusions in the academies was highlighted in the documentary.)

- The fact that a religious ethos suffuses the curriculum of these schools, negating the legal right of parents to withdraw their children from religious teaching. (Nigel McQuoid, co-ordinator of the foundation behind the schools, said ‘biblical truth must find a place across the whole curriculum’.)

- The fact that creation is taught as a legitimate theory of the origin of life and the universe , and equivalent as a theory with evolution. (McQuoid believes that evolution is a ‘faith’ position comparable to creation. Former pupils related how they were taught that evolution was on the curriculum, but creation by god was the truth.)

One teacher, Cormac O’Duffy, no longer at the school described it as ‘totalitarian’ and another, anonymous, teacher criticized the school’s ‘one-sideness and absolutism’. She said that she believed that education was about opening children’s minds but that ’what they want to do is close them’.

Andrew Copson, Education Officer at the BHA said, “This documentary vindicates what humanists and other have been saying ever since the ill-advised academy scheme was embarked upon. At a time when the Government's Education Bill threatens to hand even more of our school system over to religious interests, it is vital that the public know how these groups will use the schools they control. After all, it is the public who fund both academies and faith schools in the state sector."

‘A Better Way Forward’

As well as coming at the same time as the Education Bill, the documentary follows close on the heels of the publication of ‘A Better Way Forward’ the BHA’s 2006 revised report on religion and schools.

Creationism and Intelligent Design

The documentary also comes at a time when humanist campaigners are renewing their efforts to have the threat of creationist teaching in schools recognized. Yesterday the BHA wrote to schools minister Jacqui Smith, asking that she justify her comments of last week that creationism and intelligent design might legitimately be included within national curriculum science.

Commenting on Ms Smith’s statements, Andrew Copson, education officer at the BHA said, “It seems inconceivable that the government should give even tacit approval to the teaching of creation as a scientific theory. That they should approve its teaching within the national curriculum for science is outrageous.”

 

[Smoke]

However as a system of belief, it ought to be taught as well as Agnosticism, Atheism, and Non- Creational theism within a separate curriculum

I can only think of one good thing about teaching religion in the schools: Most of the kids would probably be thoroughly sick of it by the time they graduated, and for rest of their lives take no more interest in it than they do in geometry. That would almost make it worth it.

 

[gnostic]

Arguing about creation is pointless, what good does it do the creationists? Does God like them more? Does believing God created everything change the moral messages in the Bible?

All I know is that the more creationists tried to push the creation down our throats, the less I believe that religion have a place in society.

I think the creation in the Genesis is interesting, but not at the expense of putting it in the science class. When I do a science subject, then I better be taught science, not religion or creationism. I rather that it be my choice to learn more about creation or religion in my own free time, not some Christian and Creationist agenda.

The stuff I know about Christianity and my knowledge of other religion comes from my free time and effort. And I am willing to learn more about religion, when the time is given. But putting creationism in science would only put me off religion altogether.

 

[ashai]

The problem then with this is you're opening the door to standardising a cirriculum for something that should be a lifelong pursuit of personal discovery.

Teach the sciences and evolution if you want, but don't teach Big Bang theory... why? because it's almost as ridiculous as "there is a God".

Ushta ChrisP

How so? Today many subjects are taught as different subjects . No one has ever said 'Aha!lets not teach reading and writing because we can teach computers'. One thing has nothing to do with another.:tsk:

Besides I proposed teaching these (Creationism, satheism, Agnosticism and Non- Creationist Theism) in a separate curriculum.these subjects wil be taught as different alternatives one may choose. in this way people will be able to make free and informed choices without what amounts to unrelenting propaganda for only one side of the issue, taught as definite truth. This propaganda, I submit, is what we have now.

Ushta te
Ashai

 

[ashai]

I can only think of one good thing about teaching religion in the schools: Most of the kids would probably be thoroughly sick of it by the time they graduated, and for rest of their lives take no more interest in it than they do in geometry. That would almost make it worth it.

Ushta Midnight Blue

As I implied in my post, creationism is nothing that can be discussed in a science course. :tsk: It also is truly very narrow to define religion as creationism. Creationism is, simply put, the theory that what is and exists, was created and did not self create itself. Is not , or need not be, a teaching of religion. Besides, in my post I made it clear that it ought to be taught together with other positions.:bounce

Today its only the monistic materialist view that is presented . A view that has not beeen proven and ought not to be taught and much less as truth.:tsk: Why? Because it transcends the scope of science to opine on the why of reality, a question it is not equipped to answer. Thus, as long as we deny even the possibility of creation and teach no alternatives we are bsaically brainwashing little brains full of mush with only one of the possible views of reality.

Ushta te
Ashai