Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Greg1234]

Intelligent design is very brittle and delicate. Any vibration shatters it.

Actually, when Mr Tomatoman's omitted portions are reinstated you should not carelessly throw stones at a brick property from a glass house.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Yes, you are dreaming aren't you.

And you, like all Hovindians, are under the table and dreaming.

 

[Greg1234]

It isn't illegal. It just has to be science. Needless to say "goddidit" doesn't qualify.

"ancientEgyptiansdidit" does qualify. So does "magneticfieldsdidit" (provided that we are doing science and not visible science).

 

[freezerman2000]

I think that creation science should be offered as an elective course,with a carrot attached. If a student takes the course, he or she gets extra credit for their regular science course.
The method used would have to have minimum emphasis on God though, to keep in line with the separation of church and state.

There is a high school near me that teaches it, but the course is taught in a church next door, to avoid legal problems...the ACLU tried to get the course shut down, but a federal judge ruled that because the class was being held in a church, it did not violate any civil rights.
To give students the opportunity is only fair,seeing that it gives them the opportunity to know both sides of the coin, for comparison.
Allegorically speaking, it is like having two ways to do an algebra problem...different processes,same ultimate,identical conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that creation science should be offered as an elective course,with a carrot attached.

Save your carrots for the rabbits in the Precambrian -- 'creation science' is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Greg1234]

That's how science works. Like war. Ancient people knew how to kill each other with bows and stones. Our knowledge is much more advanced and thus different than theirs. Did they knew about nuclear bombs? No. Did Darwin knew about DNA? No.

Does that make the ancients incorrect? No. The were killing people just fine.

That's like trying to say that blind and deaf men who can now produce better canes than their closest ancestors are more advanced than the eariest men who could see and hear. Of course they were different.

 

[freezerman2000]

Save your carrots for the rabbits in the Precambrian -- 'creation science' is a contradiction in terms.

You do not understand my terminology...a carrot attached means an in incentive.
Creation science is a contradiction in terms? I bet that there are folks in this world who would disagree with you.

 

[Upisoft]

That's like trying to say that blind and deaf men who can now produce better canes than their closest ancestors are more advanced than the eariest men who could see and hear. Of course they were different.

"Advanced" when applied in the context you did is only in your head. Until you think about yourself in such way, you can't be helped.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not understand my terminology...a carrot attached means an in incentive.

Yes -- I knew what you meant --

Creation science is a contradiction in terms?

Yes -- God didn't use science to create the universe.

I bet that there are folks in this world who would disagree with you.

Ya -- I call them 'clowns'.

They are the ones who [rightfully] get pwned by these Internet scientists here.

It's sad to see even high-profile creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind get their points handed back to them by the unregenerate -- but they deserve it.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[fester30]

You do not understand my terminology...a carrot attached means an in incentive.
Creation science is a contradiction in terms? I bet that there are folks in this world who would disagree with you.

When I was Christian I remember a Baptist preacher telling us that we had it all wrong when we were trying to mix science and religion. He said science was of the world, and religion was of God. He said science is made of all the measurable properties of the universe. Religion was immeasurable. God is by faith, not proof, therefore not of science.

Now that I'm an atheist I understand it from the other side. God and creation are faith-based, as there is no measurable aspect of either. Science is measurable, falsifiable by definition. Aspects of science have parameters by which they can be disproved if certain conditions are not met. For example... my cold water theory is that if a faucet is marked with a 'C' or is turned in the direction of the 'C,' most of the time the water that comes out will be colder than 72 degrees F. This is a falsifiable theory, in that there is a specific way to measure it. I can test all the faucets in the world by turning them on and measuring them with a thermometer. If most of them are higher than 72 degrees F, than my theory is false. If most are colder, than it is true. That is what falsifiable means.

Science is falsifiable. There are conditions that each hypotheses in the Big Bang theory is falsifiable by measurement. Those same measurements might also make them true. We'll know when those measurements are possible to be taken by our technological abilities.

God is not falsifiable because he is not measurable. There is no measurement that I could take to find out if God is true or false. There is no measurement I could take to find out if a creature that may or may not exist created the universe. Therefore creation is not a scientific theory.

I think creation should be taught in a theology class. I think theology classes should be offered in public school, just as mythology classes are offered. Why is it we can learn about Zeus and Jupiter but not Jesus and Muhammad? That doesn't seem right. If you teach creation, though, it must be ALL theological creation stories, not just the Judeo-Christian. You must be equal and include Hindu, Buddhist, and any other creation ideas out there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think creation should be taught in a theology class.

How about history class as well?

I think theology classes should be offered in public school, just as mythology classes are offered.

I'm for theology class, but mythology classes in pubic schools do nothing more than make the kids needlessly stay in school for another hour; not to mention waste taxpayer money.

Why is it we can learn about Zeus and Jupiter but not Jesus and Muhammad?

Because most people can't tell the difference between the wheat and the tares.

In other words, they're "educated".

That doesn't seem right.

When did 'right' ever count in the public school system?

If you teach creation, though, it must be ALL theological creation stories, not just the Judeo-Christian.

Then let the churches teach creationism properly.

If the public schools have to drag Mohammad and Zeus in with Jesus Christ, then I'll drag my bottom-end to the poll booth on voting day and let my voice be heard.

You must be equal and include Hindu, Buddhist, and any other creation ideas out there.

You call that 'equal'?

 

[Cabal]

How about history class as well?

I'm for theology class, but mythology classes in pubic schools do nothing more than make the kids needlessly stay in school for another hour; not to mention waste taxpayer money.

Because most people can't tell the difference between the wheat and the tares.

In other words, they're "educated".

When did 'right' ever count in the public school system?

Then let the churches teach creationism properly.

If the public schools have to drag Mohammad and Zeus in with Jesus Christ, then I'll drag my bottom-end to the poll booth on voting day and let my voice be heard.

You call that 'equal'?

Thanks for showing yet again why people who think like you have no business in the education system.

also lol you said pubic schools

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for showing yet again why people who think like you have no business in the education system.

No argument there.

also lol you said pubic schools

So? what are they called in Ireland?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

"ancientEgyptiansdidit" does qualify. So does "magneticfieldsdidit" (provided that we are doing science and not visible science).

LOL if you think those two "account for human origins" then the education system has failed you terribly.

 

[freezerman2000]

AV, for all you know, God very well be the greatest scientist in existence...All of the complexity of life,geology,meteorology and other natural processes...No one discipline covers everything.It would take much more than a lifetime to know all there is to know about every branch of science, yet apparently God does.

 

[fester30]

You call that 'equal'?

You know... it's probably not. I guess there would be no way in the length of a school year to teach all theological systems without missing a few since there are so many. Besides, some of them would probably become misrepresented by misunderstandings or even personal biases of the teachers. I guess we should leave theology to the churches. This would include creation, then.

 

[Cabal]

So?

amusing typo was amusing

what are they called in Ireland?

Public schools, funnily enough.

Or if you want to get technical, "pobalscoileanna".

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess we should leave theology to the churches. This would include creation, then.

Again -- creationism could (and should) be taught in history class.

Otherwise, you'll have mommy and daddy telling little Johnny that creationism shouldn't be taught in school; then later, after they tuck little Johnny in bed, and the lights go out, they'll get on the Internet and ask creationists a thousand questions about how the universe got started.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Again -- creationism could (and should) be taught in history class.

The creation as told in the bible can't be proven to be accurate historically either.

It could be taught I suppose in some sort of class that teaches pupils about myths. We could for example cover astrology in the same class.

 

[Delphiki]

Again -- creationism could (and should) be taught in history class.

Otherwise, you'll have mommy and daddy telling little Johnny that creationism shouldn't be taught in school; then later, after they tuck little Johnny in bed, and the lights go out, they'll get on the Internet and ask creationists a thousand questions about how the universe got started.

I've always agreed that creationism could be mentioned in a social study class during a lesson plan on world religions. However, this won't be taught as "this is how it happened", it would be taught as "this is what X believes".

There are still a couple problems with this, though. I've never met 2 creationists that believe the same thing or interpret their creation mythology the same way. The mention would still have to be generalized -- simply stating that YECs believe in a 6-day creation while more liberal denominations of Christianity either see it as allegory or try to relate "day" to a long time period.

Additionally, even after you consolidate the numerous Judeo-Christian interpretations into 2 general groups (YEC and OEC), you still need to go over the creation stories of the other major religions. For example, in Islam, you have almost the same story, but I'm not aware of any mention of the time it took God to make everything. IIRC, Muslims believe Allah just did it all at once with one word. Hindu's believe that Vishnu instructed Brahma to create the world. Then you have the Shinto and other creation stories.

Teaching things about creationism, at this point, with it's diverse origins begins to look more like a separate college course, since you can't really cram it all amidst a high school class on world religion.

One thing constantly overlooked is that the bible creation story isn't the only one floating around out there and neither is there just one version of it.