Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[SplitRock]

The reason I became interested in the Creation-Evolution debate was my concern over the political attempts to get creation taught as science in our country’s public school systems. I think it is a very bad idea to teach a religious concept as if it was science and to force public school teachers and school districts to include creationism (either Scientific Creationism or I.D.) in their science curriculum. My question for creationists in this forum is: Do you believe that creationism should be taught either with or in place of evolution in public school science classes? If so, what should be taught and why? I ask this question because it is possible for someone to have a particular religious belief, but not want it taught in public schools because they believe it is not the proper place to teach it. Thanks and please let’s keep the discussion civil.

 

[MartinM]

Where a large percentage of parents want creationism taught in science class, perhaps it should be. It would make a perfect case study of how not to do science.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

It might be worth a mention in the myths and legends class.

 

[Arikay]

I agree with martin. Creationism could be put in science books as an explination of why science and god should be kept seperate, that when you say "god did it" its no longer science.

It could also be used as an example of how science works and falsifies theories.

 

[Jon]

/me thinks that if evoultion is taught in a public school then creationism should be taught too.
/me dosn't think that creationism or evoultion should be taught by themselves.

 

[Jon]

SplitRock:
I sould tell you that all the people that posted before me were not creationists.

 

[WinAce]

I think creationism should be taught in school, yes. We teach the phlogiston and aether theories, as well as the experiments that falsified them, so why not add creationism to the mix? Seeing the predictions of creationism defined and compared with real-world data, falsifying it, would be a good lesson on the scientific method.

 

[Zadok001]

Jon:

Well, duh. With titles including "Godless Heathen" and "Evil Atheist," what did you THINK they would be? Now, Jon. Tell us WHY you think Creationism should be given such treatment?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Various groups that are lobbying to have creationism inserted to science class are doing so for theological reasons, not scientific ones. Hence, it should not be taught in science class (unless, yes, you want to demonstrate how theories are falsified in the course of scientific discovery).

But teaching creationism in science class would be like teaching Shakespeare in gym class. It's the wrong venue.

 

[Arikay]

So, do you believe creationism should be taught in science class?

Do you believe creationism should be held to the same standard as evolution?

Do you believe the creation stories of all religions should be taught, or only the christian one?

Today at 04:14 PM Jon said this in Post #5

* Jon thinks that if evoultion is taught in a public school then creationism should be taught too.
* Jon dosn't think that creationism or evoultion should be taught by themselves.

 

[Osiris]

I remember seeing the first chapter of Genesis in my senior english books(But we didn't read it =\). I think that's the subject it should be in, not in science, because it doesn't have any scientific imformation. On the other hand, it can be read in english classes like Hamlet, Beowolf or any other works of literature if people want it to be taught in schools so much.

 

[Zadok001]

It occurs to me that a story translated out of another language into ours in hundreds of different ways depending on translator would likely not make a particularly good ENGLISH subject either...

 

[WinAce]

Comparative mythology is a good place for it. Only the Epic of Gilgamesh and Iliad compare to Genesis in terms of good fiction.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:14 PM Jon said this in Post #5

* Jon thinks that if evoultion is taught in a public school then creationism should be taught too.
* Jon dosn't think that creationism or evoultion should be taught by themselves.

Jon, how do we teach creationism as a valid theory when it has been falsified?  How do you expect teachers to lie to their students like that?

 

[wb3]

Excuse you! I would not go up to you and tell you are completely wrong about a particular belief without presenting a shred of evidence. I expect the same respect out of everyone that is decent enough to participate in a forum such as this.
Now, my individual belief is that as evolution is not a scientific law such as is gravity and in the process of BELIEVING it you must make some assumptions as do you in creation. First you really must somewhat believe in the Bible. You may say that that violates separation of church and state but in reality it does not. Separation of church and state means the government cannot endorse a view. Teaching creation/evolution is neither endorsing a THEORY but fairly presenting a view for young adults to decipher between. Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as is evolution. I am a hardcore Creationist, yet I believe that if either one of these theories is going to be taught they both should be.

 

[Arikay]

my individual belief is that as evolution is not a scientific law such as is gravity and in the process of BELIEVING it

You cant compare evolution to the "law of gravity" you need to compare it to the theory of gravity.

Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as is evolution.

Then you have evidence that supports creationism?

Please, can you show us how its as valid?

Today at 05:50 PM wb3 said this in Post #15

Excuse you! I would not go up to you and tell you are completely wrong about a particular belief without presenting a shred of evidence. I expect the same respect out of everyone that is decent enough to participate in a forum such as this.
Now, my individual belief is that as evolution is not a scientific law such as is gravity and in the process of BELIEVING it you must make some assumptions as do you in creation. First you really must somewhat believe in the Bible. You may say that that violates separation of church and state but in reality it does not. Separation of church and state means the government cannot endorse a view. Teaching creation/evolution is neither endorsing a THEORY but fairly presenting a view for young adults to decipher between. Scientific creationism is as valid a theory as is evolution. I am a hardcore Creationist, yet I believe that if either one of these theories is going to be taught they both should be.

 

[wb3]

the evidence for evolution. I have not seen any compelling evidence yet. maybe you can offer some that does conflict with my source of reasoning, the Bible.

 

[wb3]

The next time you drop a wood board on your big toe, you tell me gravity is not a law. Have not seen anything go up without a source of energy propeling it. Evolution, never seen a monkey that looked like a human and had the intelligence.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 02:05 AM wb3 said this in Post #18 The next time you drop a wood board on your big toe, you tell me gravity is not a law

Which law? Do you mean Newton's law of Gravitation?

You know it's wrong, right?

 

[Arikay]

If your source of reasoning is the bible, then there is a reason why creationism should be taught in science.

1) Science isnt religious, so, the bible or "goddidit" are not really allowed in science.

2) it would be teaching one religion over another, unless you believe the schools should teach Every creation myth from Every religion.

3) In science, if valid evidence is found to conflict with your hypothesis (the bible) then it means your hypothesis is wrong, and not the evidence.

The interesting part is that the evidence only conflicts with a literal view of the bible, but doesnt conflict with how the majority of christians view the bible.

Today at 06:01 PM wb3 said this in Post #17

the evidence for evolution. I have not seen any compelling evidence yet. maybe you can offer some that does conflict with my source of reasoning, the Bible.