Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[morningstar2651]

If I take a class about Christianity, then I want to learn the Christian view on the creation of Earth.

If I take a class about Ancient pagan religions, then I want to learn their various creation stories.

If I'm in a science class, then I want to learn science, not religion.

 

[placebo2]

If I take a class about Christianity, then I want to learn the Christian view on the creation of Earth.

If I take a class about Ancient pagan religions, then I want to learn their various creation stories.

If I'm in a science class, then I want to learn science, not religion.

Very Succinct!

By the way, I have noticed that every community of any size has places of worship. I wonder why the Creationist/ID advocates have not considered teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design in these places. It seems ideal. Is there any place where this message would have more authority than in God's house? Furthermore, each denomination could teach its own version, and if desired could attack evolution unopposed.

It seems so obvious. I wonder why no one has thought of this before.

 

[Katydid]

It seems so obvious. I wonder why no one has thought of this before.

Well, I know that the churches I have attended, do teach creationism, and in older classes address it in opposition to evolution. So you aren't addressing anything that hasn't already been done.

If I'm in a science class, then I want to learn science, not religion.

You are assuming that one is completely exclusive of the other. That is not always the case.

You are all stating that the reason you DON'T want it taught is basically because you don't agree with it. Regardless of the fancy talk about science and theories and evidence, it comes down to the fact that you don't want your children taught something that you believe is fiction. Well, creationists feel the same way. The difference is that creationists are willing to compromise and allow both methods to be taught, whereas you want exclusivity in your beliefs.

 

[placebo2]

... Regardless of the fancy talk about science and theories and evidence, it comes down to the fact that you don't want your children taught something that you believe is fiction. Well, creationists feel the same way. The difference is that creationists are willing to compromise and allow both methods to be taught, whereas you want exclusivity in your beliefs. [Note: emphasis added].

I don't have faith in your statement that "creationists are willing to compromise." However, pretending that it's true at this moment in time, and using history as a guide, it is only temporary at best. Whereas science is a journey of discovery in which our understanding of the world is modified as we learn more about it, religion is a suppression of any new knowledge that threatens dogma. Science modifies theories to fit the facts. Religion modifies facts to fit beliefs.

Does anybody really think that as Creationism/ID gets a toehold in the classroom that it will stop there?

 

[Katydid]

Does anybody really think that as Creationism/ID gets a toehold in the classroom that it will stop there?

I admit, that some radical creationists may continue to fight it, but, as someone who believes in creation and was raised as such, I really think you are over cautious. I mean, I know that I would be quite upset if ANY religion took over our schools completely. That sets a precedence. I think most reasonable Religion's people understand this. If we open the door for one, then it opens the door for any. Most of us, I believe, don't want our children to be brainwashed in our beliefs, but hope that they will willingly and knowingly CHOOSE our way. I have never known anyone who didn't want other ideas to be addressed. If anything, as a homeschooler, I hear the opposite sentiment from Christians all the time. Stating that they WANT their children to see other religions and other ideas, so that they can learn how to deal with ideas that conflict with their own. I agree with this. I hope you don't think that Christians are great conspirators trying to take over the schools, then the government, then THE WORLD!!!! bwahaha!

I am not so ignorant as to believe that no Christian feels this way, but just as their are radical Muslims, there are radical Christians. But, they are not the majority.

 

[SnowBear]

I think the question has been framed improperly. The mainstream media wants to tell us that Christian conservatives only want scientific creationism taught in public schools. This is a blatant lie. All that we request is "equal time". There is a profound air of academic dishonesty afoot if we ONLY allow the teaching of one narrow, inflexible theory and its accompanying agenda.

And should schools also give equal time for the teaching of the Hindu creation mythology?



What about equal time for the teaching the theory that sickness and disease is caused by malevolent spirits? After all the notion that sickness is caused by simple creatures to small to be seen with the human eye is also just a theory.



What about giving equal time to the teaching of astrology as an alternative to astronomy?

 

[SnowBear]

You are all stating that the reason you DON'T want it taught is basically because you don't agree with it. Regardless of the fancy talk about science and theories and evidence, it comes down to the fact that you don't want your children taught something that you believe is fiction. Well, creationists feel the same way. The difference is that creationists are willing to compromise and allow both methods to be taught, whereas you want exclusivity in your beliefs.

It is not a question of belief it is a question of honesty. Evolution is a theory that has stood up to scientific inquiry and has mountains of evidence to support it. It is the foundation of modern medicine. Creationism has no evidence to support it. to even imply that Creationism is somehow at the same level as science is to say that medicine, biology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, and a host of other sciences are without merit and foundation. Worse saying that Creationism is on the same level as science is not a compromise, it is a lie. You may choose to lie to your children but I will not lie to my child or any child.

 

[placebo2]

... I hope you don't think that Christians are great conspirators trying to take over the schools, then the government, then THE WORLD!!!! ...

... I am not so ignorant as to believe that no Christian feels this way, but just as their are radical Muslims, there are radical Christians. But, they are not the majority.

Unfortunatley extremists all too often hijack a cause. Their passion, energy and "ends justify the means" mentality are a potent force. And when it is a religious zealot, with the authority of god, and no one on earth to answer to, their passion easily spins out of control.

 

[Katydid]

You may choose to lie to your children but I will not lie to my child or any child.

In YOUR OPINION creationism is a lie. Whereas in a Creationists OPINION evolution is a lie. My whole point is that over half of the U.S. alone, ascribe to A religion. And most religions believe in A form of creation. Now, as a Christian, I don't want the Biblical account of creation taught exclusively, but to teach that some believe in Creation, to state the ideas of Creation is only fair to the over 50% of the population that believe it.

Unfortunatley extremists all too often hijack a cause. Their passion, energy and "ends justify the means" mentality are a potent force. And when it is a religious zealot, with the authority of god, and no one on earth to answer to, their passion easily spins out of control.

You are absolutely correct. But, you cannot punish everyone due to a few people's extreme views. That would be like me saying that some extreme athiests who believe that ALL parents who teach their children religion are child abusers, is a comment that ALL athiests believe. That would be untrue, but there are a few athiests who do believe this.

The point is, we live in a country where the majority rules and the minority have rights. Unfortunately it often goes the other way, where we try to accomodate the rights of the minority to the point of penalizing the majority. In this case, the minority is given the right to it's viewpoint of evolution, whereas the majority (that over 50% that adhere to a religion) are being stripped of their rights to have creation taught. There are basically two ways to deal with this:

1. teach both views with a teacher that is not biased (or at least in a non-biased way)

or

2. don't teach any view

 

[placebo2]

... the minority is given the right to it's viewpoint of evolution, whereas the majority (that over 50% that adhere to a religion) are being stripped of their rights to have creation taught. ...

It is a distortion for you to say that people are being stripped of their rights to have creation taught. Creationism can be taught in places of worship, in the home, in private schools, in comparative religion classes, in philosophy classes, and on and on. However, the battleground is in the science classroom. It is not science when you start with a conclusion and manipulate the facts to fit the conclusion. That is not how science works. That is how superstition, religion and faith work.

It is not long into a discussion with a religious person that you get to the response, "my beliefs are based on faith." In Christianity, like most religions, it is understandable why faith is needed with so many supernatural events as its foundation. For example, the virgin birth, the resurrection, walking on water, feeding thousands with two fish and five loaves of bread, people living to be hundreds of years old, Noah and the Ark, parting of the Red Sea, and on and on.

I wonder, why would Christians with their history, tradition, and framework of beliefs based on faith panic that Creationism isn't taught in science class? Why shouldn't the Creation be based solely on faith? Why is it necessary for science to give credence to the Creation? Is it that science is a threat to religion? Is it that religion is an easier "sell" when there are many unknowns in the universe? Is it that religion is a harder "sell" as people become better educated? Is it that if science cannot be stopped, at least it can be perverted?

In case you don't understand why it is important not to pervert science let me pose this question. Imagine that from our country's founding that religious leaders had determined the science curriculum in all schools. Do you think today that:
... we would be more technologically advanced,
... we would be less technologically advanced,
... or, technological advancement would be the same?

Hint: Think of Afghanistan where they are a thousand years behind the rest of the world.

 

[Katydid]

In case you don't understand why it is important not to pervert science let me pose this question. Imagine that from our country's founding that religious leaders had determined the science curriculum in all schools. Do you think today that:
... we would be more technologically advanced,
... we would be less technologically advanced,
... or, technological advancement would be the same?

Hint: Think of Afghanistan where they are a thousand years behind the rest of the world.

My personal beliefs in this matter are that the school system isn't and shouldn't be responsible for educating our children on any subject. But, beside that point, many people do not have the means or motivation to handle the schooling on their own. Personally, I feel that the issue of creationism vs. evolution should not be discussed in a classroom at all. Show me one scientific advancement that stemmed from this specific concept (either one). It is all speculation and best guesses. Science should be taught in science class, not guesses and supposition. To me, the idea of how the earth was created is not important in the grand scheme of scientific advancement.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You are all stating that the reason you DON'T want it taught is basically because you don't agree with it. Regardless of the fancy talk about science and theories and evidence, it comes down to the fact that you don't want your children taught something that you believe is fiction. Well, creationists feel the same way. The difference is that creationists are willing to compromise and allow both methods to be taught, whereas you want exclusivity in your beliefs.

That's simply false. The reason we don't want it taught IN SCIENCE CLASS is because it is NOT SCIENCE. If creationists want it taught, great...but not in science class, because it's not science. Simple.

My personal beliefs in this matter are that the school system isn't and shouldn't be responsible for educating our children on any subject.

Great. There goes the school system.

Personally, I feel that the issue of creationism vs. evolution should not be discussed in a classroom at all.

Right...ban it because it offends some people's religious beliefs.

Show me one scientific advancement that stemmed from this specific concept (either one).

Sorry, but this just shows your complete ignorance of modern science. Evolutionary theory has led to huge advances in medicine and biology. I suggest you do some research on the subject.

Note that evolutionary theory has led to many scientific advances; creationism has led to none, because it's not science.

It is all speculation and best guesses.

No, it's not. It's scientific theory based on evidence.

Science should be taught in science class, not guesses and supposition.

Great. Then we should teach evolutionary theory.

To me, the idea of how the earth was created is not important in the grand scheme of scientific advancement.

However, the world's scientists disagree. Guess which out of you and the world's scientists know more about science?

And surely I don't have to point out that how the earth was created has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory?

 

[jgarden]

""To assert the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
(Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, trial of Galileo)

Why stop with mandating that "creationism" be taught in schools. I humbly suggest that "flat earthism" is Biblical also, and should also be on the curriculum. If science can't be relied upon to determine the origin of the earth, how can we trust it to determine the shape of the world?

 

[Arikay]

What scientific degree do you have?
You can have your opinion that how the earth was created, and how the diversity of the species came about and that it is only guesses (theory doesn't mean guess in science) but that doesn't mean you are right.

Evolution is a very important part of biology, the understanding of how our earth was created is very important to geology. Matter of fact you have most likely taken advantage (directly or indirectly) of these two things. You can claim they are just guesses but I don't want misconceptions like that taught to students.

My personal beliefs in this matter are that the school system isn't and shouldn't be responsible for educating our children on any subject. But, beside that point, many people do not have the means or motivation to handle the schooling on their own. Personally, I feel that the issue of creationism vs. evolution should not be discussed in a classroom at all. Show me one scientific advancement that stemmed from this specific concept (either one). It is all speculation and best guesses. Science should be taught in science class, not guesses and supposition. To me, the idea of how the earth was created is not important in the grand scheme of scientific advancement.

 

[Katydid]

Why stop with mandating that "creationism" be taught in schools. I humbly suggest that "flat earthism" is Biblical also, and should also be on the curriculum. If science can't be relied upon to determine the origin of the earth, how can we trust it to determine the shape of the world?

Why do people always bring this up? The main difference is that Flat Earth theory, has been PROVEN wrong. Evolution has not been PROVEN right. I have yet to see it reproduced. I have yet to see a monkey evolve into a human. So it hasn't been PROVEN.

However, the world's scientists disagree. Guess which out of you and the world's scientists know more about science?

When it comes to advanced science you may be right, I just don't think the public school system is the place to discuss it, because of the diversity and the fact that you are holding children hostage to teach it. (I use the word hostage loosly, not as an offensive concept, but they don't have the choice to walk out during that class). Whereas, in college, students are given the OPTION to take the classes they do. I think that is a much better format in which to discuss it.

 

[Arikay]

Germ theory (the theory that microscopic organism that reproduce are a major cause of illness) has never been proven either. You can't prove any theory in science, you can however get very close (as in 99.99% sure). Does that mean we should remove it from schools as well?

Evolution is the major foundation of biology, suggesting it shouldn't be taught in the biology section of science is like saying that the school is holding kids hostage for teaching that the speed of light in a vacuum is finite and constant (a claim that creationism sometimes contradicts). Should we stop teaching that in physics? Where do we stop? Any theory that anyone has a problem with for any reason should be taken out of school?

 

[Katydid]

Where do we stop? Any theory that anyone has a problem with for any reason should be taken out of school?

I can truly see and understand your point. That doesn't mean that I fully agree with your point. What I see here is a major portion of the population disagreeing with a theory that will NEVER be proven right or wrong. What is your problem with saving that area of science for college level students?

 

[Arikay]

I would agree that a change in our school system is needed. I think some of the details can be left for college and they need to teach the basic principles of science better.

Science isn't a popularity contest, unfortunatly the majority population doesn't have the best grasp on science. If it was left up to popular opinion we may be teaching children about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide (water).
Evolution can be falsified but hasn't been yet. It remains a foundation of biology and an important part of science.

I can truly see and understand your point. That doesn't mean that I fully agree with your point. What I see here is a major portion of the population disagreeing with a theory that will NEVER be proven right or wrong. What is your problem with saving that area of science for college level students?

 

[Zlex]

I would agree that a change in our school system is needed. I think some of the details can be left for college and they need to teach the basic principles of science better.

Science isn't a popularity contest, unfortunatly the majority population doesn't have the best grasp on science. If it was left up to popular opinion we may be teaching children about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide (water).
Evolution can be falsified but hasn't been yet. It remains a foundation of biology and an important part of science.

The difficulty here is one of apples and mule ****. POVs that are appropriate in one place, may not be appropriate in another. You don't have to be so open minded that your brains fall out.

We do not tolerate the Satanist POV at our church on Sunday, and no amount of pleading for "tolerance' is going to change that.

Similarly, we do not tolerate the teaching of iodmatic French in math class, nor the playing of blue grasss guitar licks (no matter how handsomely done) during Turandot.

No one here seems to hav eany problem with allowing churches to decide what constitutes the proper POV in their sunday schools.

Scientists get to say what science is, and what gets treated as science in the classroom, and what the facts of science are.

When Stephen Hawking starts telling Pope John Paul what Catholics should believe are teh facts about their doctrines, then we will let creationists decide what science is.

Until then, keep the donkey **** out of the fruit salad.

It's all about equating religion to science. It has nothing to do with "facts" or "theories" or "evidence" or "concepts" or "distinctions" or what the text books actually say.

It has everything to do with the fear of the modern world that religious people often feel when it turns out that god may be a more complicated being than a white guy with a beard and a magic wand.

Afterall, how does Evolution really contradict Creationism/God?

Who gets to tell God that He wasn't allowed to have used Evolution as a means of Creation...and, er, assuming we found someone with big enough balls, how do we tell Him that?

I'm at a loss to figure out if it is the Creationists who want to tell God that God could not have employed Evolution as part of ...snicker, snicker...Intelligent Design, or if it is the Evolutionists who want to tell them to tell Him that.

How does that work?

Snicker, snicker indeed, because rest assured, if we naked sweaty apes ever design a universe, it will damn well be perfect, none of these tornadoes and stubbed toes and bloody knees, no siree Bob, rest assured. I mean, what kind of a half-***** Supreme Being/God/Creator creates a third rate universe like THAT?

"See, right here, in this document that some other just a naked sweaty ape wrote, it says right there, evolution aint allowed. So, you'll have to perform some other prescribed perfect actual 7 day miracle before we can acknowledge that the whole f'n imperfect universe "as is", no warranty implied, is pretty miraculous, perfect or not."


...

What the Hell does this naked sweaty ape debate between just naked sweaty apes have to do in the least with any hypothetical concept of a Creator and what such a Creator must have or must not have done in order to create the universe?

What I'd love to see is, who wrote the rules of that debate/game.

"5 yard penalty on the Supreme Being, creating the Giant Squid via evolution. Repeat second down!"

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Why do people always bring this up? The main difference is that Flat Earth theory, has been PROVEN wrong. Evolution has not been PROVEN right. I have yet to see it reproduced. I have yet to see a monkey evolve into a human. So it hasn't been PROVEN.

People keep bringing this up because the idea of a flat earth is analogous to creationism. Both are viewpoints that can be gained from a literal interpretation of the bible, and both have been proven wrong.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Science does not deal in proof. Pick any scientific theory - germ theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory...none of them have been PROVEN right. They have all (including evolutionary theory) been established to be likely to be correct to the point that to disagree with them would be perverse. That's what science is about. That's why evolutionary theory is science.

And, of course, evolutionary theory doesn't state that monkeys evolve into humans, so that strawman is pretty irrelevant.

When it comes to advanced science you may be right, I just don't think the public school system is the place to discuss it, because of the diversity and the fact that you are holding children hostage to teach it. (I use the word hostage loosly, not as an offensive concept, but they don't have the choice to walk out during that class). Whereas, in college, students are given the OPTION to take the classes they do. I think that is a much better format in which to discuss it.

I guess we better not teach math, or history, either...after all, we're holding children hostage to teach them, too. In this light, we hold children hostage to teach them everything that they are taught in school. If we drop evolutionary theory from the list because children are hostage, then we might as well drop everything else...well, we might as well just abolish school altogether. Education's not that important, is it?