Should parents/schools be allowed to teach creationism?

Magnus Vile

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
2,507
212
✟11,190.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
I consider the belief that God created to be unscientific, but I consider the Young Earth hypothesis and the Intelligent Design hypothesis to be scientific theories. I am aware that many of you probably think otherwise. What, in your opinion, makes YEC and ID not scientific theories?

The refusal to abandon the first when pretty much all evidence disagrees with it, instead relying on more and more ad hoc explainations to try to shore up an explaination that simply doesn't work.

As for the second? Well, the total lack of any actual science, for a start. ID makes no predictions, and offers no explainations, instead relying on a "god of the gaps" theology to state that if we do not have an answer now, then we never will have.

The poor old watchmaker argument was pretty much abandoned until it's recent rise in popularity, really taking off around 1987 when, totally by coincidence, creationism was finally ruled out of bounds in a science class.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
loriersea said:
What about children who are homeschooled? Should their be curriculum standards for homeschooled children, or is it okay for parents to teach them anything they want, even if it is certifiable false?
Like the Tooth Fairy? Santa Clause? The Easter Bunny?

Besides all that, I have a question of my own. What are you trying to establish here - complete state control of what parents are allowed to teach their children? :eek:

I'm just concerned about where the right of children to accurate information comes in. Do they have any? Should they?
The "right of the children"??? :scratch: This recent vernacular is so off the mark, it gives way to government, more increasingly, wedging itself between the parent and the child. This mind-set takes total reliance on government to the next level. And we all saw what happed as the result of total reliance on government in New Orleans recently.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
skier_lacey12 said:
I agree that creationism is a belief but so is evolution and that is taught at public schools in science classes. So if one is taught don't you think the other way should be too. I believe that if they teach evolution in science class then they should teach inteligent design or creationism...agree?
Evolution is no more a belief than anything else in science, so by your argument the whole science curriculum would have to be dropped. Not to mention the humanities.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
skier_lacey12 said:
I agree that creationism is a belief but so is evolution and that is taught at public schools in science classes. So if one is taught don't you think the other way should be too. I believe that if they teach evolution in science class then they should teach inteligent design or creationism...agree?
Except that evolution isn't a belief. Evolutionary theory is a scientific concept that is to be accepted, not believed. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and therefore does not belong in a science class.
RightWingGirl said:
I consider the belief that God created to be unscientific, but I consider the Young Earth hypothesis and the Intelligent Design hypothesis to be scientific theories. I am aware that many of you probably think otherwise. What, in your opinion, makes YEC and ID not scientific theories?
There's no opinion involved. Science has a definition, as does the word "theory". Neither of them are theories because neither satisfies that definition. I will provide it here for you for reference:
Wikipedia said:
In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

  1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
  2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
  3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
  4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
  5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.
Please note that Intelligent Design has not been experimentally verified, makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, asserts certainty, and most certainly does not pass Occam's Razor. For these reasons it cannot be considered scientific. It's then easy to see why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. If you have questions about any of the above statements about Intelligent Design/YECism, feel free to ask.
 
Upvote 0

Hydra009

bel esprit
Oct 28, 2003
8,593
371
41
Raleigh, NC
✟18,036.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
RightWingGirl said:
I consider the belief that God created to be unscientific, but I consider the Young Earth hypothesis and the Intelligent Design hypothesis to be scientific theories. I am aware that many of you probably think otherwise. What, in your opinion, makes YEC and ID not scientific theories?
Well, when one's "science" rests solely on the basis of biblical interpretation, it's a pretty safe bet that this isn't actually science. It's obvious that there's something profoundly wrong with claiming something as a "scientific theory" that doesn't follow the scientific method at all.
 
Upvote 0

Ron21647

Regular Member
Jun 2, 2004
482
27
77
Moyock, NC, USA
✟740.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
loriersea said:
What about children who are homeschooled? Should their be curriculum standards for homeschooled children, or is it okay for parents to teach them anything they want, even if it is certifiable false?

I'm just concerned about where the right of children to accurate information comes in. Do they have any? Should they?

I can't speak for the rest of the country (and as far as I know it is up to the states), but I used to live in Virginia, and am now in North Carolina, and only 6 miles from the state line. In both of those states, as far as I know, if you want to home school your children, and do not have a teaching certificate, you have to follow a state endorsed curriculum, and give standardized tests. I believe there are several to choose from, and some of those are endorsed or published by church groups.

Ron
 
Upvote 0

DJ_Ghost

Trad Goth
Mar 27, 2004
2,737
170
53
Durham
Visit site
✟11,186.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
skier_lacey12 said:
I agree that creationism is a belief but so is evolution and that is taught at public schools in science classes. So if one is taught don't you think the other way should be too. I believe that if they teach evolution in science class then they should teach inteligent design or creationism...agree?

No I don't agree, and this is why.

Evolution is a scientific theory that is arrived at by examining the evidence and attempting to falsify the hypothesis. It adheres to the scientific method, and it makes accurate predictions about what we will/will not find.

Hence it is a science in every definition of the term used by scientists.

Creationism ignores scientific evidence and is unfalsifiable by didn’t of calling in metaphysics to explain what it can’t explain in other ways.

ID is pseudo science that ignores the scientific method completely, and pretends to be science when it breaks one of the fundamental rules of hte method by trying to study metaphysics empirically, which can’t be done.

So no neither YEC nor ID should be taught in science classes because they fit no definition of science except their own. Evolution theory should because it fits the definition used by all sciences.

If you want YEC of ID taught then have it taught were it belongs, in religious studies.

Ghost
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
loriersea said:
Should parents and/or schools be allowed to teach children creationism (particularly YEC), or should there be limits on what can be taught? I was just wondering if, for example, a parent has the right to teach their child that 2+2=5, or if that would not be allowed? In any case, should there be limits on what a parent may teach their child or, to put it another way, do children have any fundamental right to accurate information about the world?

Parents are a little busy teaching kids to use the potty, behave themselves in public, get up for school and not to use bad words to worry about that. On the rare occasion that biology, geology, creationism or even the literal meaning of the Bible comes up the whole conversation takes less then a minute.

Public schools have so much trouble just finding qualified people to teach science it is hard to fathom why what they teach is an issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
61
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
mark kennedy said:
Public schools have so much trouble just finding qualified people to teach science it is hard to fathom why what they teach is an issue.
Because people like you have made it an issue by attempting to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us and worse, by attempting to masquerade those religious beliefs as science.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Electric Sceptic said:
Because people like you have made it an issue by attempting to force your religious beliefs on the rest of us and worse, by attempting to masquerade those religious beliefs as science.

Now when have I ever forced my religious views on you or anyone else? What is more, when did religion and science become mutually exclusive? I made a passing remark that parents are more concerned with potty training then they are creationism and this is somehow forcing my beliefs. I also mentioned that finding competent teachers in science classes is much harder then outlining a ciriculum and you played the religion card.

I don't know why or how I am supposed to take this sort of thing seriously. It has nothing to do with science, religion or the topic of the OP.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Beastt

Legend
Mar 12, 2004
12,966
1,019
Arizona
✟25,898.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
notto said:
1 in 5 Americans still think the sun revolves around the earth.
9 in 10 don't know what radiation is
Less than 1/3 know that DNA is important in heredity.

Public acceptance has no bearing on the viability of a theory.
To say nothing of the number who are unable to distinguish the difference between "then" and "than" or program a VCR. America is in a sad state indeed. And I can't help but believe that promoting a book which claims that true wisdom comes from voluntary ignorance is doing anything to help.
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
61
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
mark kennedy said:
Now when have I ever forced my religious views on you or anyone else?
You attempted to do so when you supported creationism, with its agenda of getting creationism taught in schools as science.

mark kennedy said:
What is more, when did religion and science become mutually exclusive?
They have always been mutually exclusive. One is concerned with the natural; the other is concerned with the supernatural.

mark kennedy said:
I made a passing remark that parents are more concerned with potty training then they are creationism and this is somehow forcing my beliefs.
No, your support of creationism is attempting to force your religious beliefs on others.

mark kennedy said:
I also mentioned that finding competent teachers in science classes is much harder then outlining a ciriculum and you played the religion card.
Finding competent science teachers is, indeed, difficult. And creationists further make their job harder by trying to turn them into religious evangelists.

mark kennedy said:
I don't know why or how I am supposed to take this sort of thing seriously. It has nothing to do with science, religion or the topic of the OP.
Creationism has everything to do with religion and the topic of the OP. Sadly, it also has something to do with science, because creationists like you keep attempting to convince us that creationism IS science.
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
loriersea said:
What about children who are homeschooled? Should their be curriculum standards for homeschooled children, or is it okay for parents to teach them anything they want, even if it is certifiable false?

I'm just concerned about where the right of children to accurate information comes in. Do they have any? Should they?

Home-schools, like private and parochial schools, must still meet a state standard.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Beastt

Legend
Mar 12, 2004
12,966
1,019
Arizona
✟25,898.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Electric Sceptic said:
You attempted to do so when you supported creationism, with its agenda of getting creationism taught in schools as science.
I would have to agree. Creationism has no basis outside of religion and is therefore a purely religious belief. Attempting to promote the idea that it should be taught in science class is clearly the promotion of religious beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Electric Sceptic said:
You attempted to do so when you supported creationism, with its agenda of getting creationism taught in schools as science.

I have never supported teaching creationism in the public schools. I rejected this idea the first time I heard of it because of my belief that science and political systems corrupt religion. I support creationism in light of scientific discovery but it is well beyond the reach of basic biology and a more advanced and philosophical pursuit that has nothing to do with public school education.


They have always been mutually exclusive. One is concerned with the natural; the other is concerned with the supernatural.

They have never been mutually exclusive, knowledge is knowledge. The question is how you attain knowledge, not the source, and certainly not the conclusion. Or, don't you know the literal meaning of the word science?


No, your support of creationism is attempting to force your religious beliefs on others.

My religious views are to who so ever will and have absolutly nothing to what scientists do in a lab. What is more you know nothing of my beliefs, you don't know what they are or where they lead me.


Finding competent science teachers is, indeed, difficult.

Because they can find better paying jobs in the private sector.

And creationists further make their job harder by trying to turn them into religious evangelists.

Something that has never happened because creationism is barred from public education of science. No science teacher has been forced to become a religious evangelist unless you mean the Darwinian with the dogma of univeral common descent. I imagine more then a few potential science teachers have abandoned public education over that.

Creationism has everything to do with religion and the topic of the OP. Sadly, it also has something to do with science, because creationists like you keep attempting to convince us that creationism IS science.

Let's see if I follow here...creationism is religion...ok I agree...so what? Creationism has something to do with science in that scientific evidence and theories are involved...again...so what?

I never said that creationism was science, I never said that my love for my children was science, I never said that the sun will rise tommorow was science, again so what?

I said, that parents were more interested in potty training then they were creationism and that finding competant science teachers was the biggest problem for teaching science.

Here lies the biggest problem facing the teaching of science in the public schools, social and political agendas that have nothing to do with science.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
42
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟11,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I rejected this idea the first time I heard of it because of my belief that science and political systems corrupt religion. I support creationism in light of scientific discovery

I think this speaks for itself, Mark.

Case closed.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Valkhorn said:


I think this speaks for itself, Mark.


I think it states a point of view...and yea...I hope it speaks for itself.

Case closed.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but...ok...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
42
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟11,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but...ok...

That is quite the problem. You do not see the error of your thought processes:


I rejected this idea the first time I heard of it because of my belief that science ... systems corrupt religion.

In other words, if science finds out that the truth contradicts your interpretation of a religion or the bible, it's not true science.

Do you not see the fallacy now? If not, allow me to continue:

I support creationism in light of scientific discovery

In other words, reject which science points away from creationism but accept which pseudo-science points towards it. This is self-evident in your rejection of an ancient earth (which the facts without a conclusion surely point to), the acceptance of a global flood (which has not happened and can only happen in the ignorance which creationism requires of laws of physics and evidence) and the believe that Genesis - a man made book and for millions of theists an 'inspired' and not 'authored' by god book which many believe should be taken metaphorically due to a literal interpretations contradictions with reality.

A literal belief in Genesis was perhaps acceptable 2-4,000 years ago, after all we did not even have knowledge of the stars in the heavens or the elements of the earth, but to believe in it today when so much evidence points away from a literal meaning is simply ignorance and blind faith and an unwillingness to accept anything that could shake your faith.

You simply cannot let blind faith and closed eyes guide your heart or your mind. Even in the Bible (which I read from cover to cover thank you) isn't there a mention of god helping those who help themselves? You simply cannot blindly walk around thinking your faith and your interpretation is the only way to go either.

So why do you accept gravity, the presence of stars in the heavens, the heilocentric theory, when they are contradicted by a literal reading of the bible elsewhere?

The reality of it is, Mark, that you do not know what evidence is out there, and the only evidence you look at is typically fabricated evidence, evidence that only lies in the margins of pseudoscience and creationist 'buy-my-book-for-more' websites.




 
Upvote 0