Creationism in science lessons

[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

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, Theories are just that! And if just the U.S. Gov. would spend one out of every million dallors it spends tring to and prove theories, in tring to disprove them we all would have alot more money and less classes of science cause theories would be esaly proved to be lies! I heard someone mention the big bang. what caused it? we don't know. If everything was in one place, What was everything else? Nothing? Wait lets go to before the big bang. what was it? These are but a very few of the unprovable things but lets look at the ones we can prove. CAUSE and EFFECT ! Back to subject of start, creation, does it hold more water than theory? I state YES! Because or if we are talking of creation as in the Holy Scriptures? If so then I would say lets not keep putting money into tring to disprove scripture! We have spent enoff on that here. Lets go at science. Here is a biggy it is a FACT that to evolve you must WANT TO!CAUSE and EFFECT. And unless anyone would like to dispute the FACT that the only ones on this Earth that have a mental want or the cappacity to want are HUMANS not animals! it is a FACT it is impossible for any lower than a man to change anything! Here is a funny if a dimond is made by heat and presure on carbon why is there no layer of diomond in the Earth? Or are you going to say that the heat and presure was so drastic from one inch of ground way in the Earth to the other just the same one inch away? Or how can the bigbang have the univerce expanding but we are in the same orbit or do we now have 3369 days a year?

 

[Halcyon]

Hi, Theories are just that! And if just the U.S. Gov. would spend one out of every million dallors it spends tring to and prove theories, in tring to disprove them we all would have alot more money and less classes of science cause theories would be esaly proved to be lies! I heard someone mention the big bang. what caused it? we don't know. If everything was in one place, What was everything else? Nothing? Wait lets go to before the big bang. what was it? These are but a very few of the unprovable things but lets look at the ones we can prove. CAUSE and EFFECT ! Back to subject of start, creation, does it hold more water than theory? I state YES! Because or if we are talking of creation as in the Holy Scriptures? If so then I would say lets not keep putting money into tring to disprove scripture! We have spent enoff on that here. Lets go at science. Here is a biggy it is a FACT that to evolve you must WANT TO!CAUSE and EFFECT. And unless anyone would like to dispute the FACT that the only ones on this Earth that have a mental want or the cappacity to want are HUMANS not animals! it is a FACT it is impossible for any lower than a man to change anything! Here is a funny if a dimond is made by heat and presure on carbon why is there no layer of diomond in the Earth? Or are you going to say that the heat and presure was so drastic from one inch of ground way in the Earth to the other just the same one inch away? Or how can the bigbang have the univerce expanding but we are in the same orbit or do we now have 3369 days a year?

What goes on in your head?

First, its trying.

Second, things don't evolve because they want to, its because they have to.
Since when do bacteria think? Yet they constantly evolve resistance against antibiotics - but then, you probably don't believe in germ theory .

Third. We can make diamonds! We know how they form and we can do it ourselves alexander, seriously pull your head out of the sand!

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

What goes on in your head?

First, its trying.

Second, things don't evolve because they want to, its because they have to.
Since when do bacteria think? Yet they constantly evolve resistance against antibiotics - but then, you probably don't believe in germ theory .

Third. We can make diamonds! We know how they form and we can do it ourselves alexander, seriously pull your head out of the sand!

I was thinking his head might be imbedded in something other than sand, but yours is more polite than what I was thinking when I read his post.

B.

 

[Endless]

Personally i think creationism would be a good thing to teach alongside evolution.
They would teach the ways in which a creationist interprets the facts and why they don't accept aspects of evolution.

It would have to be balanced - evolution obviously as the main bulk, but creationism given it's share as well. It would provoke debate and students researching themselves leading to them obtaining a greater understanding of biology and the intricate mechanisms of genetics. Therefore expanding knowledge and appreciation of different viewpoints on certain matters.
I think it's naive to think that the students cannot make up their own minds and it will leave them confused - that's utter nonsense. They are more than capable of seeing through things, seeing things that don't make sense or logical inconsistancies etc. Parents complaining about their children being taught creationism in school are probably only going to encourage their children to go online and read all about 'what their parents didn't want them to learn about' anyway.
But in the classroom you can get balance - something you won't always get on the internet.
My view is that it can only enhance knowledge of biology and actually stimulate the students brains to research and learn things for themselves - rather than getting 'boring facts' that they find inaplicable.

 

[Ormiston]

Personally i think creationism would be a good thing to teach alongside evolution.
They would teach the ways in which a creationist interprets the facts and why they don't accept aspects of evolution.

It would have to be balanced - evolution obviously as the main bulk, but creationism given it's share as well. It would provoke debate and students researching themselves leading to them obtaining a greater understanding of biology and the intricate mechanisms of genetics. Therefore expanding knowledge and appreciation of different viewpoints on certain matters.
I think it's naive to think that the students cannot make up their own minds and it will leave them confused - that's utter nonsense. They are more than capable of seeing through things, seeing things that don't make sense or logical inconsistancies etc. Parents complaining about their children being taught creationism in school are probably only going to encourage their children to go online and read all about 'what their parents didn't want them to learn about' anyway.
But in the classroom you can get balance - something you won't always get on the internet.
My view is that it can only enhance knowledge of biology and actually stimulate the students brains to research and learn things for themselves - rather than getting 'boring facts' that they find inaplicable.

A nicely put argument, IMO. The trouble is that creationism is not science. Why not bring it up in English class? I'm sure it would encourage the same healthy debate that it would in science.

 

[Steve]

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

How about because we cant make nothing explode into everything in the science lab? Also because their are many flaws with the big bang theory - consider reading "Dismantling the Big Bang" - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890514372/102-8302319-9929700?v=glance&n=283155

 

[Steve]

The trouble is that creationism is not science. Why not bring it up in English class?

I disagree, while some parts of the Creation account cant be tested many can, eg global flood, irreducible complexity/design detection etc.
The big bang cannot be reproduced yet it is taught in the science class and evidence is put forth that seems to support the idea eg expanding universe (redshift) etc. The initial Creation can be supported the same way, we cant reproduce it, but we can show the evidence that supports it.

 

[booshard]

It should definatly not be taught in schools...why teach something that is completely false!

 

[kevmicsmi]

One Word......vouchers

 

[Opethian]

Maybe they should just have a two hour a week debate class of Creation vs Evolution where they give the students links to interesting sites to find arguments and to magazines and science books etc..., and where one side puts forth an argument and the other side tries to refute it. Of course it won't work with gradings based on the number of arguments you refute or else the creationist side would fail that class every year

 

[Valjean]

Hi, Theories are just that! And if just the U.S. Gov. would spend one out of every million dallors it spends tring to and prove theories, in tring to disprove them we all would have alot more money and less classes of science cause theories would be esaly proved to be lies! I heard someone mention the big bang. what caused it? we don't know. If everything was in one place, What was everything else? Nothing? Wait lets go to before the big bang. what was it? These are but a very few of the unprovable things but lets look at the ones we can prove. CAUSE and EFFECT ! Back to subject of start, creation, does it hold more water than theory? I state YES! Because or if we are talking of creation as in the Holy Scriptures? If so then I would say lets not keep putting money into tring to disprove scripture! We have spent enoff on that here. Lets go at science. Here is a biggy it is a FACT that to evolve you must WANT TO!CAUSE and EFFECT. And unless anyone would like to dispute the FACT that the only ones on this Earth that have a mental want or the cappacity to want are HUMANS not animals! it is a FACT it is impossible for any lower than a man to change anything! Here is a funny if a dimond is made by heat and presure on carbon why is there no layer of diomond in the Earth? Or are you going to say that the heat and presure was so drastic from one inch of ground way in the Earth to the other just the same one inch away? Or how can the bigbang have the univerce expanding but we are in the same orbit or do we now have 3369 days a year?

Alexander, you do not know what a theory is, do you? And, if I'm reading this right, you do not seem to understand what science is nor its methodology.

 

[windcarver]

I don't think creationism should be discussed if the big bang theory is not discussed. It's a case of several different points of view, all unprovable to a certainty. Certainly teach the sciences, but anything that is beyond the scope of how things work are unimportant from a schooling point of view. Let people make up their own minds how things got the way they are.

I agree with you completely. If they don't teach the big bang theory, they shouldn't be teaching creationism either.

 

[gnostic]

In high school, they didn't teach the Big Bang. We also didn't have in class in astronomy. I would only think they would teach such thing at the university in astronomy course.

In all my science subjects, including those in university, I was taught only the thing required - mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. So the Big Bang would fit in any of these categories. If you are learning medicine, engineering, electronics or computer science, there is no point in teaching the Big Bang. So I don't know what people are complaining about the Big Bang being taught or not.

But this is in Australia. Did your schools or university teach the Big Bang in a non-astronomy subjects?

I didn't do any biology subject (or similar field) at university level, only when I was in high school. But they didn't teach us evolution in biology. Perhaps if you studying at university, would they teach you evolution, and only in the fields that you are pursuing, would evolution be of relevance to you.

Science is huge and multi-discipline. Big Bang and Evolution would only be taught in certain subject and in certain field.

The big bang and evolution were something that I had read and learnt in my own free times. If I was pursuing some astronomy subject would the Big Bang be relevant to me.

For bl#@dy Creationists to say that the Big Bang shouldn't be taught in the relevant science subjects, showed just how really petty and ignorant you are.:banghead3

 

[dorcas3000]

Well, i think evolution should be taught in science, because I was never formally taught it and now I can't even hold a decent discussion on the subject. In high school, we 'skipped over' evolution. How that's possible I don't really know. I took a college course in biology, but it was more of a genetic engineering/ethics course. I still have my textbook from highschool biology, but it was published in the early to mid 90s. I've read through it but it doesn't explain much about evolution in terms of the nitty-gritty things people talk about. It explains the basic concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest and all that stuff, and lists the 'ages' of the earth and the fossil record timeline, but that's about it. As for the fossil record, it says "there is a fossil record." (???) Doesn't really say much.

So, creationism shouldn't be taught in science, 1) because it doesn't fit and 2) there are enough things that aren't taught in science and should be.

PS to those who think i'm ignorant for being a creationist, please remember that not everyone has been blessed with such opportunities to study evolution in depth. I just won't side with anything I know little about!

 

[Yerda]

Well, i think evolution should be taught in science, because I was never formally taught it and now I can't even hold a decent discussion on the subject.

Perusing the 'science vs religion' forum might remedy that. Otherwise have a read through this Wikipedia article (with loads of links and references), take a look at the talk.origins archive (tons of reading material including the full text of Darwin's 'On The Origin of Species...' 1st edition), and I recommend some popular works like those of Richard Dawkins, easy for the layperson but full of interesting info.