Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

[whois]

(*)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'.

in all fairness, i believe it would be a safe bet that the teaching requirements would be relaxed for kindergarten through, maybe, the sixth grade.
-my guess.
even these "teachers" would probably have some type of formal "teaching" course.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

You really need to distinguish what you mean by creationists. The term is not as black and white as everyone thinks. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and from there it goes all over the place.

 

[Willtor]

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.

Possibly.

My point is that evolution is generally accepted as the grand unified theory of biology by the biology community. Not teaching evolution in science class is equivalent to ignoring the foundation of modern biology. Teaching something opposed to evolution is bringing a controversy that exists only in the public sphere into the science classroom, since no such controversy exists within biology, itself.

Now, maybe the answer is to remove science from the curriculum when people don't like its conclusions. Personally, I think that's a bad idea, but it's an internally consistent argument. Saying that something other than science should be taught in the science classroom, however, is disingenuous.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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 product of homeschooling? Do you realize that in most cases kids that are taught at home do better at college and more of them go than their public school counterparts? You have a very jaded view of reality when it comes to certain things due to your very apparent bias against religion.

 

[sandybay]

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.

Nothing comes from nothing, except of course God.

If you go back far enough we share ancestry with everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you go back far enough we share ancestry with everything.

Luke would disagree.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[Strathos]

Luke would disagree.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Actually that passage does agree with what he said, just in a different way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Luke would disagree.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

... and god created everything. So yes, in a way, the bible shows all life coming from one original "life". Or nonlife if you don't count god as alive.

 

[Willtor]

You really need to distinguish what you mean by creationists. The term is not as black and white as everyone thinks. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and from there it goes all over the place.

This is not how "creationist" or "creationism" are typically used. They're generally used to identify a couple of different specific beliefs about that creation process. By what you have just said, I am a creationist. After all, I think that God is the creator of all things. But when people are talking about creationists, they aren't talking about me.

Certainly, you are right that creationism is not one precise thing. But, typically, when the term "creationism" is used, it refers to the acceptance of some significant subset of Henry Morris' ideas about how the world was made, 6000-10,000 years ago, or to a slightly broader category of beliefs that accept an older world, but at least oppose the theory of evolution, as it is understood by scientists.

There has been some push among TE's to relabel ourselves as "evolutionary creationists" for better precision, but I don't think it will catch on because it's not helpful in most contexts. Creationists don't understand it (or don't accept it). Non-Christians don't need the specificity because the theological statement is not especially relevant to discussions of science.

 

[sandybay]

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.

You really need to distinguish what you mean by creationists. The term is not as black and white as everyone thinks. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and from there it goes all over the place.

A creationists is someone who believes in a creator.

The Internet will eventually be the downfall of the Christian religion in the US because it gives people access to other opinions, religions only flourish when no other opinions are allowed in.

Finding out what causes thunder and lightning caused people to stop believing in Thor.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A creationists is someone who believes in a creator.

The Internet will eventually be the downfall of the Christian religion in the US because it gives people access to other opinions, religions only flourish when no other opinions are allowed in.

Finding out what causes thunder and lightning caused people to stop believing in Thor.

Pretty sure belief in the Norse gods ended before that point, and most religions die out because of OTHER RELIGIONS becoming dominant and stamping out those who retain the previous beliefs.

 

[sandybay]

Pretty sure belief in the Norse gods ended before that point, and most religions die out because of OTHER RELIGIONS becoming dominant and stamping out those who retain the previous beliefs.

I expect your right about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually that passage does agree with what he said, just in a different way.

"He" who?

 

[AV1611VET]

... and god created everything. So yes, in a way, the bible shows all life coming from one original "life". Or nonlife if you don't count god as alive.

According to that passage, who is Adam's common ancestor?

 

[Split Rock]

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.

I agree with some of this post, especially "Evolution is a scientific theory and creation is religious doctrine." What I don't understand is why you would think it is OK to teach religious doctrine in a science class.

 

[Split Rock]

According to that passage, who is Adam's common ancestor?

Dirt?

 

[Strathos]

"He" who?

The person you quoted. Which I just now realized is a female. Oops. :o

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

English is not my first language.

I dont care how much you say you have studied, I only challange your use of terms and science. Your post is very ignorant of both.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of you being wrong.

 

[South Bound]

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?

The minimum requirement is that a teacher pass the Praxis II exam. Many, if not most, government school teacher have no additional training in their content area than the two or three general classes they were required to take in college.

The only reason I had a degree in my content area is that both of my parents were college professors and I got free tuition.

I was asked to teach literature, which I love, but had no specific training.

So, in answer to your question, not much.

 

[sandybay]

The minimum requirement is that a teacher pass the Praxis II exam. Many, if not most, government school teacher have no additional training in their content area than the two or three general classes they were required to take in college.

The only reason I had a degree in my content area is that both of my parents were college professors and I got free tuition.

I was asked to teach literature, which I love, but had no specific training.

So, in answer to your question, not much.

That does not sound good, do you think most Americans are aware of this?