Creationism in public schools?

[ParanoidAndroid]

Better yet...how about it being an elective in high school, but NOT required for college admission? I mean, if the child or his/her parents want their child taught evolution...fine, but is is wrong to make children learn it.

So evolution is now something that should only be taught to children who's parents agree with it????

Luckily, I live deep enough in the South that the teachers refuse to teach it.

Yeah, just as a point of interest - for myself, as someone who does not live in the "Deep South" of America, and is also a "teacher" (though not a Science Teacher), this is not a point to boast about or be proud over (sorry to be so blunt)......

~ PA

 

[OllieFranz]

Personally I think creationism and evolution ought to be tought in a world's religions class. As for the actual science which does kind of lean on evolution as a basis of their findings and scientific explaination make it known that it is an assumption not a fact.

This exactly why I prefer the word model to the word theory. A map is not the world, it is a model of the world. But a map can tell you many interesting, and some vital, facts about the world. Likewise Evolution is a model of how living beings change over the generations. Just as blue ink on paper is not an ocean, Evolution, the model for the change, is not the change, but it can tell you important facts about the change.

 

[AoDoA]

a good video series

/watch?v=zzskq2d9tSo

can't post links yet

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

can't post links yet

I share your pain. So often I wanted to post links to support my ideas and the system wouldn't let me.

Persevere, my friend (describe the concept if you need to and suggest google or youtube searches if you think it is necessary in the interim)

 

[AoDoA]

I share your pain. So often I wanted to post links to support my ideas and the system wouldn't let me.

Persevere, my friend (describe the concept if you need to and suggest google or youtube searches if you think it is necessary in the interim)

well I gave you the link...just add it too www dot youtube dot com

 

[OllieFranz]

<<snipped long quote>>

this comes from the Amazon.com page for Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance! Shattering the modern theory of evolution"


I remember recently seeing a short video clip showing that foxes kept in captivity were changing very quickly into what appeared to be dog like creatures


and ironically they claim this to support evolution when it in fact supports convergence and a rapid specific non random adaptation to a specific environmental change

It is against the forum rules to copy huge blocks of copyrighted material. It can put the forum owners into serious legal hot water, which could result in CF being forced to shut down.

The rule is to quote the most important one or two sentences, and paraphrase or link to the rest.

 

[lux et lex]

Wow if that's what goes on in the Deep South it again makes me proud to be a Northerner.

 

[LightSeaker]

Creationism does not belong in public schools. Period!!

.

 

[Archivist]

Judge Jones' opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which held that intelligent design could not be taught as science in a public school, is available at www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

 

[LightHorseman]

Better yet...how about it being an elective in high school, but NOT required for college admission? I mean, if the child or his/her parents want their child taught evolution...fine, but is is wrong to make children learn it.

My kids will not be in class nor will they take any test dealing with evolution unless they tell me they want to and AFTER we sit down and talk about Creationism.

Luckily, I live deep enough in the South that the teachers refuse to teach it.

Refusing to teach children facts because you disagree with the conclusions those facts suggest is misguided.

 

[LightHorseman]

That's just it....the worth of evolution does not matter. Only the idea being pushed...."Bible is wrong and evolution proves it". That is all that matters.

You and people like you are the only ones pushing that particular conclusion.

The Bible shouldn't be mentioned in a science classroom at all. The only thing that matters in a science classroom is what can be supported by direct experiment and observation. If those direct observations and experiments lead one to conclude that their understanding of the Bible is wrong, then thats not really the fault of science, is it?

 

[Armistead14]

I honestly don't see you can teach creation in school without a form of religion being involved.

I don't understand all these Christians saying bring prayer back into schools. What they're saying is bring our prayer back into schools.

They forget America was formed on freedom of religion. If we bring any aspect of religion back into school, then we have to allow all, which would result in madness. I would just be happy if they could teach reading and math again.

Do I wish we were all of one mind..yes. Do I wish we had one religion..yes.
We would probably be a better society. When you look at nations like India where all of are basic like mind, it makes it easier and things run smooth.. They say we are a melting pot, but what happens when the pot runs over.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

it is accepted scientifically and i agree

creationism isnt close to being a science, yet evolution is (it is and dont be stubborn)

Evolution is the standard taught so deal with it, if you cant then go to a private school and let your child learn differently, if you cant afford it then stop crying and just take evolution...
sorry if its harsh...but really its not that hard

if there was more of a rational basis and foundation of creation - other than the Bible literally states 7 days
then perhaps, but there is no real solid foundation - especially when trying to teach this in public schools

agree with above poster - religion must be involved if you argue for Creationism because that is its basis which would lead to seperation of church and state debates

Evolution isnt an attack necessarily on the Bible - not if your a TE that is

 

[rcorlew]

I have one simple thought to bring this whole subject into light....

Why is it thought to be necessary to describe the origins of the bacteria we are studying in order to better understand it, or any other part of natural science for that matter, we merely need to study the object at hand in order to understand the object at hand, how it came to be is totally irrelevant to the object at hand.

To illustrate my point, who are Abraham Lincoln's grandparents, when did his forefathers immigrate to America, what country did they come from, what were their political views pre and post immigration, what church did they belong to etc. etc....

My point is that you do not need to teach either evolutionary theory or creationism at all. Dissect the rat and see what is inside without espousing either viewpoint, both are irrelevant to the rat at hand, and if evolutionary theory is correct, you would know that the lineage of the rat is irrelevant because now the rat is different because of evolution and knowing what preceded the rat is immaterial to any discoveries regarding the rat anyway. Evolutionary theory or evolutionary science does not belong in biology as it is science of observable similarities and ancestral mapping, if anything it should be taught as a history lesson at best.

By the way, the Abraham Lincoln part is science, it is called social science which is indeed the observation of people.

 

[OllieFranz]

Why is it thought to be necessary to describe the origins of the bacteria we are studying in order to better understand it, or any other part of natural science for that matter, we merely need to study the object at hand in order to understand the object at hand, how it came to be is totally irrelevant to the object at hand.
<snip>
My point is that you do not need to teach either evolutionary theory or creationism at all. Dissect the rat and see what is inside without espousing either viewpoint, both are irrelevant to the rat at hand, and if evolutionary theory is correct, you would know that the lineage of the rat is irrelevant because now the rat is different because of evolution and knowing what preceded the rat is immaterial to any discoveries regarding the rat anyway. Evolutionary theory or evolutionary science does not belong in biology as it is science of observable similarities and ancestral mapping, if anything it should be taught as a history lesson at best.

OK, then. Explain why the flu vaccine developed last year does not work this year. And how you would go about developing a new vaccine for this year's flu without mentioning how the new generation of viruses evolved from the previous generation. Or is there a new special creation of flu every year?

 

[LightHorseman]

I have one simple thought to bring this whole subject into light....

Why is it thought to be necessary to describe the origins of the bacteria we are studying in order to better understand it, or any other part of natural science for that matter, we merely need to study the object at hand in order to understand the object at hand, how it came to be is totally irrelevant to the object at hand.

To illustrate my point, who are Abraham Lincoln's grandparents, when did his forefathers immigrate to America, what country did they come from, what were their political views pre and post immigration, what church did they belong to etc. etc....

My point is that you do not need to teach either evolutionary theory or creationism at all. Dissect the rat and see what is inside without espousing either viewpoint, both are irrelevant to the rat at hand, and if evolutionary theory is correct, you would know that the lineage of the rat is irrelevant because now the rat is different because of evolution and knowing what preceded the rat is immaterial to any discoveries regarding the rat anyway. Evolutionary theory or evolutionary science does not belong in biology as it is science of observable similarities and ancestral mapping, if anything it should be taught as a history lesson at best.

By the way, the Abraham Lincoln part is science, it is called social science which is indeed the observation of people.

Evolution explains the biodiversity of life on Earth, and it is still taking place today.

Asking "why should it be studied? You don't need to teach it" is a bit like saying you don't need to teach plate tectonics in a geology class, or about aglomeration theory in an astronomy class.

Science isn't all about things people necessarily NEED to know. I learned lots about plant biology in high school science, and I have never NEEDED to know it. I'm glad I DO know it though, because education and knowledge are an end in and of themselves.

It bothers me quite deeply that what people seem to be suggesting is that evolution become some sort of "secret knowledge", that, "we know the science supports this understanding, but we are uncomfortable with some of the conclusions this implies, so we'll pretend itdoesn't exist and make it hard as possible for kids to find out about".

I would also assume that if we stopped teaching about evolution in science classes because people "don't need to know it", that you would continue hammering in the Creationist message at home to fill the obvious void left in inquisitive minds who ask the obvious questions about where we came from? Pretty sneaky pushing a hearts and minds agenda so that by the time they get to college, they are more likel to dismiss the actual science when confronted with it.

 

[Citanul]

I would also assume that if we stopped teaching about evolution in science classes because people "don't need to know it"

I would argue that people do need to know it. The evolution vs. creation debate isn't going to go away any time soon and as there's a lot of misinformation about evolution, isn't it better for everyone to have a proper understanding of what evolution actually is? You don't need to accept it, but knowing what the other side claims isn't going to hurt.

And to those advocating the teaching of creationism as science, which version of creationism should be taught? There are a numebr of different varieties out there which aren't compatible with each other, so which is the right one?

 

[brightmorningstar]

The issue with creationism and evolution is a political one. Many scientists, though they do believe the theory of evolution as a whole nonetheless are quite prepared to admit that some of the evidence the creationsits say is lacking is indeed lacking.
The problem is that creationism is about God, hence the reaction of scientists who are atheist and secular and outspoken. Some of the loudest critics of creationsim are also arguably not particualrly good scientists.
I dont think creationism should be taught in schools providing evolution is taught as the theory that it is, and not a fact that it is claimed to be. Addressing some of its weaknesses that creationism highlights.

 

[LightHorseman]

The issue with creationism and evolution is a political one.

No its not. The issue is that the science doesn't support creationism, it supports evolution. Nothing to do with politics.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To lightHorseman,
Sound like you are one of those involved in the politics.