Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

[sandybay]

I could be wrong but I don't think there are any states that teach creation in public schools.

If that were true creationism would not be given the attention it is given, creationists would not even be noticed they would be considered to be just another religious fringe group.

 

[crjmurray]

If that were true creationism would not be given the attention it is given, creationists would not even be noticed they would be considered to be just another religious fringe group.

I would say they are a fringe group but.....sigh.....Louisiana

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you wish your children to be educated or indoctrinated? Education involves showing both sides of an argument and using reason to decide between them. Indoctrination is the presentation of only one side to the exclusion of any other. So if the teacher believes evolution is true he teaches that position, and if he believes in creation he teaches that position. I prefer neutrality. Evolution is a scientific theory and creation is religious doctrine. They are mutually exclusive, but the decision on where to place one's faith is not for educators to make. Evolution is scientific but not truth, creation is truth but not scientific.

 

[crjmurray]

Do you wish your children to be educated or indoctrinated? Education involves showing both sides of an argument and using reason to decide between them. Indoctrination is the presentation of only one side to the exclusion of any other. So if the teacher believes evolution is true he teaches that position, and if he believes in creation he teaches that position. I prefer neutrality. Evolution is a scientific theory and creation is religious doctrine. They are mutually exclusive, but the decision on where to place one's faith is not for educators to make. Evolution is scientific but not truth, creation is truth but not scientific.

The fact that you think teaching science in school is indoctrination but teaching creationism in school isn't is pretty much why your side will always lose that debate.

 

[Willtor]

Do you wish your children to be educated or indoctrinated? Education involves showing both sides of an argument and using reason to decide between them. Indoctrination is the presentation of only one side to the exclusion of any other. So if the teacher believes evolution is true he teaches that position, and if he believes in creation he teaches that position. I prefer neutrality. Evolution is a scientific theory and creation is religious doctrine. They are mutually exclusive, but the decision on where to place one's faith is not for educators to make. Evolution is scientific but not truth, creation is truth but not scientific.

If we're going to call the class "science class" probably we should teach the science. If some think that science is an invalid way of getting knowledge, why try to allow creationism into the class about it?

 

[Blue Wren]

If it happens I think this only happens in the southern states of the US but I might be wrong about that.
Even then it must obviously only happen in the bible belt states anyway. (hopefully)

Can anyone tell me what science qualifications teachers are required to have in order to teach science classes in US public schools?

I do not think, so many science teachers, in the US, teach creationism, at schools, no. I think, that happens, in schooling, from the home, in rural areas. A lady, who home schools, she told me, there are no rules, for home schooling, where she lives. They, do not need, any qualifications, to teach, from home, she said.

I am living, in the US, for this year. I had wanted, to learn, cultural differences, for America & Sweden, as much, as possible. In Europe, creationism, it is almost non-existent. I learnt, about it, on this place. I have asked, so many Americans, since learning, about it. I've talked about it, at my internship, in classes, at church, ect, ect, quite much. I spent 4, whole summers, in the US, in younger years. I know people, all over this country. Christians. I have asked, about this, on Facebook, many times. Nobody, has ever, been taught creationism. These people, are Christians, also.

In Sweden, creationism, being taught in science classrooms, it is illegal. Schooling, from the home, it is illegal, also.

 

[crjmurray]

I do have a neighbor that homeschooled his son. The parents are YECs but the son is not. Too much exposure to the real world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do have a neighbor that homeschooled his son. The parents are YECs but the son is not. Too much exposure to the real world.

The internet may be the downfall of the remaining U.S. creationists. Your neighbor's son has resources that your neighbors did not. It is getting harder and harder for creationists to hide their children from reality.

 

[crjmurray]

The internet may be the downfall of the remaining U.S. creationists. Your neighbor's son has resources that your neighbors did not. It is getting harder and harder for creationists to hide their children from reality.

Unfortunately the son is socially inept (a product of his homeschooling). But yes, having a wealth of information at his fingertips is what made him realize how silly YEC is. Now he can't get into college, he's lacking in basic social skills, and he has a rudimentary grasp of science that most of us had in the eighth grade. Creationism may be on its way out but its leaving behind some sad stragglers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say there is no alternative, do you mean it's not possible or that none has been recognized in peer-reviewed literature?

There is no scientific alternative since to be a scientific explanation certain rules must be followed. A hypothesis that replaces an existing hypothesis or theory has to be testable. It must have a way of being refuted if it was wrong. It must make predictions. It must be useful in explaining how life got to the state that it is today. Creationism fails these tests terribly. ID fails in a fairly spectacular way to but now as obviously since the claims of ID people tend to be rather vague.

And the people that can actually do science at places like Answers in Genesis know of their own failings. That is why they never even try to publish their nonsense in a well respected peer review journal. Some creation scientists come from other sciences, ones where no one is saying that events occurred by magic and that lets them ignore the evidence that shows that they are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately the son is socially inept (a product of his homeschooling). But yes, having a wealth of information at his fingertips is what made him realize how silly YEC is. Now he can't get into college, he's lacking in basic social skills, and he has a rudimentary grasp of science that most of us had in the eighth grade. Creationism may be on its way out but its leaving behind some sad stragglers.

A lot of adolescent boys are socially inept. Hopefully he will grow out of that stage. Do his parents know that their son has accepted reality? If so how have they reacted?

 

[crjmurray]

A lot of adolescent boys are socially inept. Hopefully he will grow out of that stage. Do his parents know that their son has accepted reality? If so how have they reacted?

He's 19 or 20 now so not adolescent. Once he gets into the real world he'll adjust I assume. I have no idea what his parents know or don't know. I'm close with the father and I know there's some animosity between him and his son but I don't know if it's rooted in their religious beliefs.

 

[sandybay]

Do you wish your children to be educated or indoctrinated? Education involves showing both sides of an argument and using reason to decide between them. Indoctrination is the presentation of only one side to the exclusion of any other.

I could not agree more, if there are two sides to an argument we must teach both sides, unfortunately there is only one side to this argument that can be demonstrated to be true because only the sciences can be shown to be true by experiment, creationism on the other hand has absolutely no way of showing that it is true, nothing.

One is shown to work in reality the other has nothing to do with reality.
The sciences work with facts and creationism is just a belief.

 

[KWCrazy]

If we're going to call the class "science class" probably we should teach the science. If some think that science is an invalid way of getting knowledge, why try to allow creationism into the class about it?

If you can't tell the difference between evolution and science you probably shouldn't be teaching. Teaching evolution as a theory is one thing; like teaching about Greek mythology or Mayan culture. Teaching is as an irrefutable fact is something else.

 

[KWCrazy]

One is shown to work in reality the other has nothing to do with reality.
The sciences work with facts and creationism is just a belief.

Reality is the sum total of all our perceptions and to totality of all things natural and supernatural. The physical world alone is not reality.

The evolution of everything from nothing has no basis in reality. We share 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil, but we don't share ancestry with daffodils.

 

[whois]

If it happens I think this only happens in the southern states of the US but I might be wrong about that.
Even then it must obviously only happen in the bible belt states anyway. (hopefully)

Can anyone tell me what science qualifications teachers are required to have in order to teach science classes in US public schools?

i was not specifically "taught creationism" in school.
i was specifically told evolution did it.
i seriously doubt anyone my age or younger was taught creationism in their public school.
catholic schools are not public.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you can't tell the difference between evolution and science you probably shouldn't be teaching. Teaching evolution as a theory is one thing; like teaching about Greek mythology or Mayan culture. Teaching is as an irrefutable fact is something else.

...

I really dont know what to say other than that you really should learn the terms and basic science.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is no scientific alternative since to be a scientific explanation certain rules must be followed. A hypothesis that replaces an existing hypothesis or theory has to be testable. It must have a way of being refuted if it was wrong. It must make predictions. It must be useful in explaining how life got to the state that it is today. Creationism fails these tests terribly. ID fails in a fairly spectacular way to but now as obviously since the claims of ID people tend to be rather vague.

And the people that can actually do science at places like Answers in Genesis know of their own failings. That is why they never even try to publish their nonsense in a well respected peer review journal. Some creation scientists come from other sciences, ones where no one is saying that events occurred by magic and that lets them ignore the evidence that shows that they are wrong.

This is a nice polemic against creationism, but it doesn't answer the question I asked. Creationism and ID aside, are you saying:

1) It is not possible to create an alternative hypothesis to evolution?

or

2) No alternative has been recognized by peer-reviewed literature?

 

[essentialsaltes]

In California, for the Single Subject Teaching Credential, I think you need(*) a bachelor's degree (not necessarily in science) and either:

A) a certain number of units in biology classes:

"The specific subjects in science must include the components for that area as shown below. At least one course must include a laboratory component.
Biological Sciences: Molecular and Cellular Biology, Biology of Organisms, and Evolution"

Or B) pass a particular standardized test in biology.

(*)This assumes there is no staffing emergency in the school district, and there are always emergencies, which is how a lot of biology teachers are named 'Coach'.

 

[KWCrazy]

I really dont know what to say other than that you really should learn the terms and basic science.

I really don't know what to say either, except that you should learn punctuation before pretending to know what knowledge anyone else has accumulated.

I spent the first 10 years debating the subject based on the merits of the science itself. After that about every argument that could be made had been made, every source was subjected to analysis, every bit if evidence interpreted by both sides. it basically came down to which experts you chose to believe and which problems you were willing to overlook because neither side could produce definitive arguments.

Since the science was inconclusive, I shifted my focus to the religious aspect. If God is right then evolution is wrong. What is taught by the Scriptures lies in direct contrast to what is taught in biology by people who think they have all the answers but don't.

What still amazes me is the profound ignorance displayed by those who always assume that those with a different point of view must not understand the science involved. There is a difference, for those who can comprehend, between not believing what is claimed and not understanding what is claimed. If your level of understanding cannot rise beyond that gulf, then we are wasting out time.