Your View: Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools?

1. astraya - September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Jamie!!!! What are you doing????

2. logar - September 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

NO

3. SnowKid32 - September 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Yeah. I agree. We should say FUCK YOU to 6 billion people and only go with the atheistic idea of evolution and darwin and such forth.

4. jfrater - September 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

astraya: it’s a hot topic!

logar: why? Is it any different to teaching children about the caste system of India in Social Studies class? I am not proposing it be taught as a fact, but as a module on belief systems.

5. logar - September 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

The children of America need to be taught Creationism like they need a hole in their heads. If the religious types want to teach their children this garbage, let them do it at church, Sunday School, or in the home. Teachers have a hard enough time making the basics stick- why waste time with bullshit?

6. jfrater - September 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

logar: okay - thanks for expanding on your first answer

7. logar - September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Also, I don’t think all that many people in the US believe in creationism- just the fundamentalists. The problem is, they are a very vocal minority (perhaps majority in some areas in the south.)

Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments by saying I was raised Roman Catholic, educated in Catholic/Jesuit institutions. Once I hit high school (go Marauders!) they stopped feeding us creationism, and tried to incorporate God into scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang, etc., which is much better than trying to pass Genesis off as fact, IMHO.

Just because 90% of the world believes the world is flat, doesn’t mean the people who know better should teach what they know is false.

8. jfrater - September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

logar: because we know the world is not flat, would it be wrong for schools to teach children that people used to believe it (and some still do in fact)? As I said above, I am not suggesting it be taught as a fact, but as an aspect of social studies.

9. Brian - September 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Teaching creationism is like teaching that Santa really does exist & you must believe or you get no presents.

10. MT - September 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

NO! It’s a Religious theory that has no business in a public school.

OBAMA IN ‘08!!!

11. Anon - September 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

NO. Repeat, NO.

Belief systems. Where to stop? Do we end up trying to explain how a young moslem can ecstatically blow himself and a few dozen other people to smithereens because a mullah promised him he would have 60 virgins to lay for eternity in Paradise?

Such outlandish mindsets and their consequences are surely worth considering and trying to come to terms with, even within some specialised area of the educational system, but not as part of the standard curriculum, please.

Besides, those who subscribe to extremist views will regard any airing of them other than out and out criticism as a form of endorsement.

12. Thaddeus - September 14th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Think of it this way:

Creationism is explained in the Bible.
The Bible is nothing but a book of fables and tales chronicling the adventures of Jesus and Christians.
These fables and tales may or may not be true.
But probably aren’t.
But some people believe they are.

So:

Why should we be teaching our children something that comes from a source that isn’t credible and is only supported by a certain religion? Should we also teach our children in school that aliens exist, JFK was killed by the CIA, and Mountain Dew lowers your sperm count? Of course not.

Catholicism has spent most of history trying to spread their sphere of influence in anyway possible to maintain power, and this is the same strategy.

Prove it to me, and teach it all you want. If you can’t, keep it in the pews.

13. Me - September 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.

14. Frodydude - September 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

@ Anon: I heard that it was a miss-translation (spelling?) that they would get 60 virgins, and that it only meant 60 pearls

@ Topic: I personally dont believe that the 7 days creationism should be taught in school because untill they have scientifically proven fact that those events happened. If not, it would be unjust to all the scientists who have spent many years of their lives to prove a point.

As for god starting the big bang I think that should just be taught in Religious Schools, Churches, Youth Groups and the like.

15. Eva - September 14th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

In my school we were taught all the theories of human origins. In science classes we were taught Darwinism and in Social classes we learned about creationism. Not only in the Christian view, we learned about all the influent religions. I think that it is important for everyone to know. As a catholic, it gives me a wider view on other religions. But if you’re an atheist, at least you can learn what you’re against.

16. Aaron - September 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I think it should be taught in schools, not as fact, but as a belief held by some people. In fact, I don’t believe that any subjects should be avoided in schools, I don’t believe in there being bad knowledge, nor should schools discriminate as to what should and should not be taught. Having said that, there is a practical limit, but that aside I see no reason why it should not be taught.

Frodydude (No.14) If that is your test of what should and should not be taught, then you might consider the fact that there is nothing scientifically proven about how life began either. Some theories and ideas simply have more evidence to support them than others.

17. Ash - September 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

I don’t think it would be wrong to teach in schools since children should be given the option to choose what they would like to believe - whether it is fact or not.

Teaching them about things that other people believe doesn’t mean that it is fact.

Should we stop storytime since some books aren’t based on fact?

18. Aaron - September 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

I also think that separation of church and state is misinterpreted. We use it to mean that religion should never be mentioned in schools, workplaces, etc. However, this is clearly not what our forefathers meant, as many of them were religious men themselves. They only meant that religion had no place in the law.

I’m neither Christian, nor particularly religious myself, however, I have no object to learning Christian ideas of creation, as long as they are taught as such.

19. Thaddeus - September 14th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

@ Me: God is a theory. Gravity is a theory too. Jump off a roof and see which theory trumps which.

20. jfrater - September 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Guys - remember - I am not advocating that it be taught as FACT - I am saying we should teach it just as we teach the history of the flat earth theories, etc.

21. Frodydude - September 14th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I was born into a christian family, and from what I saw around me, read and watched, I slowly started believing that there isnt a god, some how my family found out that Im an athiest, and now my dad hates me, my mom is okay with me, but my brothers ignore me, I dont believe I have done anything to deserve this, but the only thing that has changed was my point of view on religion. Personally I credit religion for giving hope in peoples times of need, but I dont like it because of the many problems it has caused, such as violence, ignorance, and lack of progress throughout history.

22. Mortal Light - September 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I think that if it is to be taught in schools, that it should be in a course akin to philosophy. Not only is there the fact that there are many different religions that have their own beliefs about creationism, but each person also has their own beliefs within their religion. Because of this, a course on creationism cannot be properly taught based on fact; rather, an elective course offered to college students and upperclassmen in high schools that compares and contrasts the leading ideas of creationism from a variety of religions with that of science much more appropriate than teaching creationism as an alternative to science. By that time in a student’s career, they would be mature enough to be able to make their own decisions about the big bang/creationism.

23. jfrater - September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Mortal Light: nicely put!

24. segue - September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

NO!
There are religious schools to send your children to if you want them to learn creationism (God knows I’m aware of them, having survived 13 years of parochial school!).
If you want your child to learn creationism and can’t afford a religious school, send them to Sunday school.
Public schools, at least in the U.S., are state funded. Since the Founding Fathers, wisely, provided for a total separation of Church and State, teaching any form of religious belief system in a public school would be unconstitutional and, thus, against federal law.
Sure, there are always the fundamentalists who loudly proclaim that “Creation Science” (note the cute name they’ve given it to try to give it a more scientific sound), should be taught along side evolution.
Now, I grant that every country has it’s own set of laws, world views, religious views, social views and so on. I can’t speak for societies about which I know nothing. I can speak for the basic Judeo-Christian modern culture, the one I inhabit.
Public schools exist to teach language, reading, maths, sciences, literature, history, social studies. If you’re very lucky, you’ll get taught music and art.
These are the things most parents send their children to school to learn.
I chose to teach my children morals, morality. I didn’t think they needed a story about how things came into existence, only to have to tell them later, “whoops! That wasn’t quite right, guys, it really happened like this.”
I don’t think lying to your children is a good way to gain their trust.
I don’t think letting their school lie to them is a good way to keep their trust.
Creationism was a story for people in much less sophisticated times. They needed a simple way to understand the “beginning” of things, and the creation story provided that simplicity.
We don’t need that now. We have so many more pieces of the puzzle, we’re so much closer to the answer.
NO!
No fairystories. Give them the facts.

25. Vera Lynn - September 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Where I teach, you need special classes to be certified to teach sex ed. If you want creationism taught in schools, who decides who is “qualified” or “certified” to do so? People need to take classes in their area to be certified for reading or math, etc. What does one take to be certified in Creationism? No. It should not be taught.

26. Ginger Lee - September 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

No, not only because I don’t believe in it, but whose side of creationism will you teach? The Hindu? Pagan? Greek? Or just the Judeo-Christian side, which has a million different substories as well.

I think that science class (like all classes should) should be sensitive to religious people, but claiming a guy with a white beard waved a magic wand and said “voila” doesn’t cut it with the whole scientific method.

27. Carroz - September 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm

@me: You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis. In science a theory has a much more stronger meaning than the meaning given to it in everyday life. In science very few things are consider laws, that the earth goes round the sun is also a theory, theories must, among other things, be falsifiable and testable, not false, untestable, and unquestionable like ID (aka ID).
@topic: I believe religion should be studied and be part of the curriculum of education because it is necessary to understand much of history, literature, and art just as other myths are necessary to study to understand the history, literature, and art of other cultures and times.

28. Carroz - September 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

meant creationism aka ID

29. odanu - September 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

I think it’s very important that children learn of the origin of man as the whittlings of Odin and his brothers (or aspects) Vili and Ve. Or were you revering to the creation myths of the Sumerians? Or any of the numerous North or South American myths? What about African creation myths? What of the Hindi myths? And of course, Western civilization owes most of its culture to Greek and Roman antecedents, so lets include the myth of the gods of Olympus.

Now, I would not be adverse to a comparative religions class being taught as part of the anthropology curriculum, with all these myths and the Christian myth included, but the minute you contend that myths that are unverifiable and contradictory both internally and among themselves, are the equivalent of scientific inquiry into the origin of life, you have lost all pretenses at intellectual rigor.

30. Recluse - September 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

I agree, Creationism isn’t something that makes any sense being in a science class. But how can you make any sense of history and current events if you don’t understand what drives people to do the things they do. I think Creationism is just the battleground of the larger war about the Bible, namely is it Divinely inspired or just an ancient compilation of short stories. Fundamentalists wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. The debate over Creationism is a very emotional topic in the western world. But it needs to be confronted.

31. Eggs - September 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

I see no problem with teaching the idea of creationism in Social Studies class, but along with all the other schools of thought. I’m assuming as part of a study in religion.

Isn’t this already done? I’m pretty sure I learned all about different religions in school and their basic ideals.

Other than that, Creationism taught in a science class is a strict no.

32. Panic! - September 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

I see no problem with teaching the theory of creationism, and yeah, I’m an atheist. I don’t take it as forcing kids to believe in it, it’s just explaining to them another perspective. I wouldn’t see any problem with it being taught alongside the theory of evolution.

33. Panic! - September 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

But it would make way more sense in a Social Studies class over a science class.

34. Kase - September 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

I don’t see why not. I think it’d be interesting to learn about other civilizations views on how things came to be. Like Incas or Egyptians. I’d like to learn about their creationism views. I don’t think it(the class) would only look at the Christian side of creationism. People are acting like it’d be teaching them to believe the bible, instead of what supposedly happen in the bible. Seriously, no big deal at all. Just make it an elective, or choice…

-Kase

35. Scottie17 - September 14th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

I agree pretty much with Jfrater, I understand that it should be taught as a THEORY. Think of it this way. How can you prove the Bible? it’s a book, a very popular one, so it makes sense to educate kids on it, but it’s ridiculous to tell them it’s right. Let them figure it out on their own. It is the responsibility of the educational system to provide opportunities for children. That means that they should be provided with more than one option to choose from (as giving them one option would be ridiculous)and then allowed to decide for themselves. Telling a kid he came from some almighty being who wished him to life and POOF! there he was is ludacris. Religion is not a vital part of every body’s life, so teaching it to everybody if they aren’t willing to accept it is also a bad idea. Religion and education should not mix. That being said, teaching creationism as a theory isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it gives kids a good imagination. All in all, the Bible is one big metaphor, most of it is made up to illustrate a point generated by men who were living in a terrible time period.

36. Jubyduk - September 14th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

It should be taught as science in schools…. in IRAN!
Separation of church and state means nothing in the US?
The problem (stated clearly) is the pressure to teach creationism in parallel with science classes that teach evolution. That’s the debate. The religious right wants science teachers to add a “proviso” that creationism is just a theory and creationism is an equal alternative and competing theory. That’s just plain wrong. Creation belongs no where else than in classes for religious studies. Any reference, no matter how oblique, in the context of science class is not just crossing the line, but completely obliterating the line. There is no more line. It’s a religious state. It’s the state of Iran.

37. EAL - September 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

To quote the commenter “Me”-
“You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.”

People defending creationism say that evolution is just a theory, but they do not understand what a theory really is in scientific terms. Many people get the terms “theory” and “hypothesis” mixed up. A theory is as close to a fact as you can get in scientific terms. Gravity is also just a theory.

38. SMD - September 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

No. Absolutely positively not.
Here’s why: Creationism is a scientific theory proposed by a mass of believers that REQUIRES the belief in God in order to be taken seriously. It cannot be taught as a science because you cannot actually test Creationism, thereby making it not a science by scientific standards. Creationism makes claims that evolution is a lie, that man lived with dinosaurs, that the Earth is not some billions of years old, etc. It makes claims based on no evidence whatsoever. Science makes claims based upon observation and evidence. Evolution didn’t become a theory because we magically said “oh, yeah, that happened”. It’s been changing and adapting with new knowledge of decades now.
As for any form of belief system being taught in public schools: no. Here’s why.
Not all of us are Christians, not all of us are Atheists. Unless you are willing to have taught, alongside Christianity, every other major religion in history, with the same seriousness as Christianity, you cannot teach one religion. Sorry. You can’t. If we’re going to include religion into school curriculums beyond historical things (like you know the Crusades or whatever, which are historical events that don’t require you to have a firm grounding in the religion itself to understand) you have to include all of them, at the same level. Just because we have a lot of Christians in this country doesn’t mean we’re all Christian or that we should allow ONLY Christian views to be put into our public schools. Not to mention its a violation of the separation of church and state.
Look, I don’t know what these people are bitching about. You have church. You have the option to go to church and take your kids there to learn about your religion. You can get a Bible. There’s no reason why you should require everyone to learn about your religion in a school setting. This is, at its most simplist, an attempt to convert the masses, to turn people who otherwise would not be Christians into Christians, which might sound find and dandy for some, but is a violation of a lot of things that should be left to parents. Schools cannot tell us what we can and cannot believe and allowing religion to become entrenched in state funded school systems is the same as endorsing that religion.
Leave it at home. Don’t bring it to school. School is for learning things they’ll need for college or the real world.

39. EAL - September 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

SMD:
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It could be described as a “hypothesis” at best. In order for it to be a “theory”, it would need to be repeatedly tested and accepted as a scientific fact.

40. jackit - September 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

I went to a Catholic elementary school in Canada, and in Social Studies/Religion we were taught SEVERAL creations stories (Hinduism, etc -to be honest I don’t really remember), as well as parables and traditions from various cultures.

I don’t recall being taught that the 7-day genesis story was actual fact. I never REALLY believed in it the way I never REALLY believed in Santa Claus. I specifically recall having long conversations with my Grade 5 teacher about religious theory, ie - IF we’re not supposed to hate anyone… what about the devil? If the world was created in 7 days why are fossils that we learned about in science class millions of years older than humans? That teacher thought I was a genius, heh.

Honestly, I believed that being exposed to lots of ideas at a young age really opened my mind. Just because something isnt factual, it doesnt mean it doesnt have merit. Has anyone here read Dickens’ Hard Times? The book specifically warns against shit like this. If you’re going to axe topics like creationism just because it’s “unprovable,” then you might as well send every other liberal art to the guillotine.

I think creationism (Judeo-Christian-Islamic), IF FOR NO OTHER REASON than that it is a popular and influencial belief, should be classes like social studies, AND TO BE FAIR, Hindu, Buddhist, and other influencial world beliefs (perhaps according to region - IE native American) should be taught too. I agree that it should stay out of science class, but I doubt that was where it was planned to be taught anyways.

Creationism and other matters of belief are SOCIAL INFLUENCES, that you see in EVERYDAY LIFE, whether you believe in the myths or not.

41. Jubyduk - September 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

edit: … add a “proviso” that evolution is just a theory and creationism ….

42. akumu - September 14th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

I agree. personally, I think creationisms is somewhat stupid. I do believe in evolution. And I think that evolution be taught in Science classrooms, since, it is science. But creationism should NOT be taught in science classrooms and ONLY discussed in social studies/history/humanities courses.

43. Cedestra - September 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Well, if we teach Creationism (by that I mean the Judeo-Christian version) why should we stop there? In History class we can discuss how Moses parted the Red Sea to allow for the Exodus of the Jews. In Meterology, we can just attribute everything to a vengeful God (do your homework or God will strike thee down with lightning!). Ethics/Philosophy would be totally different…
I get that, at least in America, the majority of the people are some form of Christian. But it’s only fair to include everything/one if we’re going to include one. They now display menorahs and Kwanzaa candles alongside Christmas trees in public places. I think the best solution (it won’t work, though) is to hand out permission slips like with sex-ed.

44. jackit - September 14th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

oops, anyways is not a word

EAL: things that are tested and proven infallible are no longer THEORIES.

SMD: Taught things that they need for college and the real world? I think what you are saying is a grave insult to the theology majors, sociology majors, humanities majors, and not to mention priests of the world. Yes, some people do this sort of thing in their daily lives and DO go to college/university for it.

I forgot to mention - when I got to high school my religion teacher was an irritating fundamentalist. After witnessing his mad ravings, did I become an atheist? No, actually, I stopped believing in the sticky dogma of the church and instead focused on the real values - Respect your mother and father. Love your enemies… Do unto others… you know, the REAL good stuff that while it doesnt make perfect sense, makes me happy.

Did everyone I grew up with walk away from the experience in the way that I did? No. I have friends from my youth who are atheist, agnostic, changed religions, worship the flying spaghetti monster, the works. And yet, people who didnt have the Catholic school experience have the same amount of diversity in their beliefs.

Believe it or not, children are not machines. When they learn something, they do have enough mental faculty to analyze it. Some might accept it, and some might reject it. I was taught that even teachers make mistakes. I hope every Even teachers make mistakes, and trust me, children know that.

45. Cedestra - September 14th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Oh, and BOOBIES.

46. jackit - September 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

i know my last sentence didnt make sense - just cut out the “I hope every” in the beginning

47. cheesedrummer - September 14th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

I think so, I agree with you jfrater. As long as it’s taught as a theory i cant see why it shouldn’t be taught.. give children options and facts about all the arguments and let them make up their own minds rather then telling them what to believe.

48. Mom424 - September 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Of course not. Creationism is religious dogma, not science. The only time the issue should even come up outside of a comparative religion course in high school, is during the holiday season. I remember learning about Passover, Ramadan and various other important holy days during the Christmas/New Year season. For the express purpose of teaching the predominantly white, christian students that our beliefs are not shared by the rest of the world. Differences were celebrated not berated. A big difference between that and offering creationism as science and as an alternative to biology/evolution.

I frankly am dumbfounded at the fact that this is even an issue in the 21st century. ‘Tis a pity, that.

49. DDRM - September 14th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

To add to the seeming concensus of the group.

No, creationism is religion, not science, and as such as no place in a science room. (Just as wicca paganism has no place in a horticulture course). It’s more than welcome in study of religion or even philosophy.

The problem with evolution is that it is heresy. Galileo had a theory about the earth revolving around the sun, but it was just a theory until the church officially backs down.

If the religion you choose, and choose for your children, does not allow a certain activity - then it is up to you to leave the science room.

Schools are a preparation for higher learning and future careers. Learning creationism in high school is going to be very limiting for any children intending to grow up to be biologists.

How are they going to get their doctorate when they don’t understand the basic principles of biological adaptation?

50. ndat - September 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

It is unlawful in this country to teach Creationism as a hypothesis of the origin of life in public schools. The Supreme Court decided this in the mid-80s, I think. ID is just more of the same, and a federal court in Pennsylvania has held as much. I doubt ID would make it to the Supreme Court, but it would almost certainly meet the same fate.

As for teaching it in Social Studies, as a kind of cultural awareness, I don’t see the point. Many students learn about it in Sunday School, many others know about it anyway, and it’s not going to make anyone happy.

Let sleeping dogs lie, and let religious theories be taught by religious authorities in religious schools–exclusively.

51. EAL - September 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

jackit-
gravity is still a “theory”, but I bet you’d consider it infallible.

52. Blogball - September 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

# 50 ndat said “As for teaching it in Social Studies, as a kind of cultural awareness, I don’t see the point. Many students learn about it in Sunday School, many others know about it anyway, and it’s not going to make anyone happy”

Ndat how do you know this? Do you know what every student is aware of when they come to school?

What jfrater is suggesting is really the more open minded and liberal view of things.
He is just suggesting all beliefs be mentioned and not taught in science class or as a fact.
It just seems to me that some of the same people that call creationist narrow-minded are the same people that are not open-minded about any hint of creationism being mentioned in schools. What’s the big deal evrybody?

53. daniel - September 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Jfrater were on the same page. I just gave a speech last semester advocating the same idea, that it shouldn’t be taught as fact or against evolution or in a science class room, be taught along w/ other religions and beliefs as a World Religion class. People still hated me for that idea, when all i did was glorify it by putting it in its own class than a 4 minute speech alongside evolution.

Regardless, even doing that would be a sign of good faith.
I don’t go storming into churches demanding evolution be taught along side of creationism. If you want your child to be taught about that go to church. Last time i checked, you can sit there for an hour several times a week if you like and learn about it, not to mention sunday school.

54. DoppHopper - September 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Science has nothing to do with God. Since creationism (especially the literal interpretation of genesis brand) is not science in any way shape or form, It should not be part of science studies. If it’s going to be taught in school, it needs to be part of optional religious studies.

55. Matt Howard - September 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Absolutely yes. I think many people are missing jfrater’s argument. To teach it as fact is ludicrous, as is teaching it as an ‘alternative’ to evolution. However, to educate children about the extremely weak arguments creationists employ is to do them a great service. In no way should it be taught in a science class room, however to deny educating children about a subject that a sizable minority of people believe in stems their understanding about how weak the creationist argument is.

In regards to people who keep saying ‘evolution is a theory’; yes and no. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is. However, a theory is not a ‘guess’; it is a series of arguments intended to interpret facts! Evolution is the fact, natural selection is the theory. Gravity is the fact, the geometric bending of space-time is the theory. Get the point? In no way is evolution a ‘guess’; it is a process of mutation that occurs throughout life, explained and contextualized by the theory of natural selection.

56. malfore - September 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I agree that the idea of creationism should be taught in a social studies class, but at upper levels. At early stages of grade school, children are impressionable enough to take anything taught as fact. I support evolutionary fact, but I wholeheartedly agree with the right for parents to have/not have their children learn certain controversial items. Evolution is a fact, and so it should always be taught, but parents should be given advance notice and be allowed the opportunity to excuse their student from class.
Creationism should be taught as a view point in a social studies class only at the high school level, as by that point students are mature enough to sort fact from opinion.
Do not get me wrong, I respect all religions, but I believe the root of many conflicts is the teaching of personal views to young children, I see it as a form of brainwashing.

57. commentvirginitytaken - September 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Most of these comments I glanced over are unreadable to me because they are ignorant and pathetically misinformed. Some completely jumped to the falacy(sp) that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. This is not what the author intended the topic to be about; what he said was that creationism should be taught in schools as the belief system of groups of people. Just like we were taught that ancient Egyptians had a polytheistic religion.

58. commentvirginitytaken - September 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Most of these comments I glanced over are unreadable to me because they are ignorant and pathetically misinformed. Some completely jumped to the falacy(sp) that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. This is not what the author intended the topic to be about; what he said was that creationism should be taught in schools as the belief system of groups of people. Just like we were taught that ancient Egyptians had a polytheistic religion. All of that being said, I agree in a general sense that creationism should be taught in public schools to give kids at least a perspective of the belief structure or their own parents’ beliefs.

59. Courtney - September 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Christianity: in the beginning there was an ultimate being that created everything.
Atheism: in the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
Take this how you like. To me the first seems more believable, but take it how you like.

I’m a christian, but i don’t think of it as a religion. I think it is a relationship with my creator.

Maybe it shouldn’t be taught in schools, to stop people forming opinions of each other’s religious beliefs, and if a teacher conveys the subject incorrectly, they could put across the wrong idea, and potentially cause offence.

My opinion is that the theory of Evolution should not be taught as fact.

60. Patrask - September 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Genesis 19. Read it, and you’ll see why the bible shouldn’t be taught as fact (atleast not the crazy parts).

61. jay-rod - September 14th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

yes we should…evolution is only a theory…while i know that creatures evolve…i also know that humans did not come from monkeys..we came from God who created us in His own image! i know that for a fact

62. Tink - September 14th, 2008 at 11:49 pm

I think it should ABSOLUTELY be taught in schools. I don’t think creatioonism does any harm for a child to learn. Apparently, many people debating here grew up in certain religious backgrounds and still (according to themselves) are right by rejecting what they’ve learned in favor of what they truly believe. Therefore, that in itself suggests that teaching it doesn’t bind the children in any way, nor force them to accept into their belief system an idea or truth. It’s merely presented to them, they’ll take away from it what they want. There are also many on here that try to take the vantage point that because they don’t believe in creationism, teaching it would be lying to children and they wouldn’t be able to trust you etc.. To them I say, why do you allow your children to believe in Santa Clause for any reason at all. Allowing them (espeacilly when they are young) to believe such an imaginary thing as truth is already setting them up to reject or suspect your ideas, or facts. The purpose of a school is to educate, therefore, no topic should be off limits for children to be available to learn. Church (which is funded by those who attend it, not the government) is for those that believe a certain thing to gather together in the name of what they believe in. School is meant to educate, no matter what. If you’re hung up over scientific fact or whatever, and saying that’s why it shouldn’t be taught, then meet in a science lab funded privately by those that share your beliefs (as those who attend a church would) and revel in scientic theories only and bash creationism all you want. However, institutions funded by the public should by all means expose the children to multiple truths thoughts and ideas to educate. If you must get into specifics, perhaps science classes should teach ONLY about scientific laws and proven things instead of theories… sounds rediculous doesn’t it? If the purpose of teaching evolutionary theories and others not proven as fact (and I mean proven, not “accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific community”…. that still means NOT PROVEN) is to educate the children of what the scientific community has gathered so far, Than other theories (like creationism.. which, like evolution isn’t scientifically proven) that has been gathered and believed by a majority of people (aka Christians, a majority of American society) should also be taught. If not anything else it’s educational in that it provides children with outlooks by those who trust only what comes in the name of science and those who are more numerous in society that actively question what is not proven fact by science.

63. Champiñon - September 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am

Not in the school. In the church.

64. Yoav - September 15th, 2008 at 12:03 am

I’m not an American, so this discussion isn’t mine, but I want to point just one thing out - The US is almost the only country in the World that such an idea is even being considered. The only country in the Western World. To an outsider, it’s almost absurd to witness it.

65. Frank - September 15th, 2008 at 12:05 am

When I went to school we had a class once a week called “religion”. It taught the bases and mythologies of all major religion, and as extra credit you could dive into any number of the smaller ones.

In such a setting they should teach creationism together with all the other religious mythology.

What they should NOT do is teach it in science class, or any other forum where the kids might get the impression that this is a theory accepted as truth in general society.

66. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 12:09 am

There are two things I NEED to point out to those who don’t like evolution:

1) Evolutionism is NOT atheism. After all MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ARE CHRISTIAN AND VICE VERCA

2) Evolution doesn’t say that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Rather that chimps and gorillas share a common ancestor. (The lessor known fact is that man is ape by definition)

67. Anon - September 15th, 2008 at 12:15 am

Jackit, (44),

“EAL: things that are tested and proven infallible are no longer THEORIES.”

Infallible is a religious, not a scientific concept. Everything in science remains perpetually open to challenge, to be proven wrong and changed, particularly in detail. Without that basis science would be in danger of stagnating.

As it happens in practice though, human nature understandably tends to rise to the surface in scientists themselves. After all, imagine your entire life and all your pretige and qualifications had been based on and bound up with assuming and teaching a flat earth. It’s pretty tough to accept some jumped-up, Johnny-come-lately heretic destroying that by insisting on a load of nonsense about the earth being round. That’s your life down the tube, mate.

68. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 12:17 am

Thing to point out:

Evolution is NOT atheism!

Most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionist are christians. In fact most scientists are theists.

Second, man did not evolve from monkeys or apes, they shared a common ancestor.

MAN IS APE BY DEFINITION definitely and definitively.

69. Courtney - September 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am

Yoav- if you don’t mind me asking, where are you from?

70. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am

Most christians are evolutionists and vice versa:

www.locolobo.org/majority.html

71. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 12:29 am

Tink, before you say it is not accepted as fact, prehaps you should learn abit more before you go shooting your mouth off.

72. downhighway61 - September 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am

I certainly don’t believe it should be presented as an alternate idea on how the universe was created. I’m not so sure I think it belongs in a social studies class, either. It almost seems like we’re ridiculing the belief if we teach about it there, which does no one any good. It would sort of be like putting it in the same category as believing the Earth is flat. If the school offers classes on world religions, then you can teach religious points of view.

I don’t care what Ben Stein says. (By the way, Ben Stein did a great job of twisting up Michael Schermer’s words.)

73. jfrater - September 15th, 2008 at 1:39 am

DoppHopper: I suspect that is because the Catholic Church (which contains the vast majority of Christians in the world) has never taught that evolution is wrong. Furthermore, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the idea of the big bang.

You may find this list interesting: Top 15 misconceptions about evolution.

74. Metalwrath - September 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am

There are many different creation beliefs depending on the religion… if you put creationism in school there will be problems considering, if the students are very multicultural, every single religion will want to be taught and you’ll probably end up having more creationist classes than anything else.

I believe religion should stay out of the public domain, and remain a private thing.

75. Tj - September 15th, 2008 at 2:06 am

I have to say, absolutely not, I was trying to read up (on other comments posted here) but it seems that everyone is already tied up in some argument. The single basic problem is that when we let this in at any level we will have a snowball affect. To say, a lot of people believe in creationism then lets teach it is like saying, a lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, so people were justified to teach it. The single goal of education is to teach things with evidence, things with history, things with generally accepted ideas of proof. Not opinion, these things can be taught at church, at Sunday school, Public school says “this is the situation with the most evidence”. Why when we say, no to teaching it public school do people feel like it’s an attack on their beliefs? If you want to take into account opinion take it in! but not in a forced public forum. We don’t convict someone of a crime by saying, “well he looks like hes guilty, thats enough for me” NO! it’s a process, it has checks and balances, it’s fair and even and there is one outcome. The next step will be that some pharmacies won’t carry birth control, or condoms. There is a lot at stake here that I don’t think people see, and it’s a serious problem.

76. Leah - September 15th, 2008 at 2:09 am

Even Though there are a great number of people who don’t believe, i think it should still be taught at school.
When i went to school, we had the choice to either learn it or not, and if you didn’t want to, or your parents didn’t want you to, you were given alternative work.
i think this system was most effective and because it wasn’t being shoved down our throats there never was any complaint.
we also had a specific religious teacher, (usually a representative of a church) to come teach us.

i think it would be wrong to leave this out of school altogether, and should be an option to the student to learn it

77. Tj - September 15th, 2008 at 2:26 am

Tink

I am in shock at what you wrote, part of me deeply hopes that you are trolling. To simply reject science outright is what I can only consider to by legitimately damaging to society. please understand I am not trying to make an attack on you but if you throw out science, rational, and reason in school then what in the world are you teaching? You might as well teach that the moon is in fact made of cheese, hey science rejected it but you don’t know for sure, have you been? Classes on Alien life forms. How bout a Scientology class? hey we don’t even really need literature anymore since the validity of that is argued. Hey every 8 year old argues about the usefulness of math, why don’t we just get rid of that two, math isn’t an exact science, it has openly imaginary numbers in it! Can you see? can you see how you are very directly and very literally hurting education with this thought process?

78. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 2:43 am

jfrater:

The creationist movement is an almost exclusively American thing inside of Christianity. Considering that most intellectual christians are anti-creationism, I don’t know why creationism has become so popular in the first place.

79. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 2:44 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

80. FJ - September 15th, 2008 at 3:22 am

I’m a religious education teacher in Scotland. We teach creationism in the RE department - where it belongs. We describes it as a ‘RELIGIOUS’ view and differentiate it against scientific view points.

Creationism has no place in a science classroom. It’s wrong and it discriminates against other religious view points.

We should discuss religion in schools. However, it should be comparative, open to debate and in the appropropriate classroom!

FJ

81. Denzell - September 15th, 2008 at 3:30 am

Yes, it should. It is important to look at both sides of such profound theorem.

82. Ash - September 15th, 2008 at 3:37 am

Simple answer:
NO

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

If creationism is going to be taught in school then all other religion’s theories should be taught too.

You can’t push belief onto people
they can make their own desicions

This is why people hate Christians…

83. Helly Welly Bootz - September 15th, 2008 at 3:51 am

You can tell children that some people believe in Creationism if you like, but you shouldn’t pretend it’s the same sort of thing as Evolution. Darwin’s Theory is based on logic and -proof- and Creationsim is based on blind faith.

Education is and should be about teaching children things base don logic and proof, and Church is about faith. The two should not overlap.

84. astraya - September 15th, 2008 at 4:34 am

Yes, as part of a philosophy course.

85. fishing4monkeys - September 15th, 2008 at 4:43 am

Ash:
So creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools because it ‘pushes beliefs onto people’? What about all the christian kids that go to school and have the belief in atheism pushed on them? I don’t know about the whole world but the majority of Americans, at least, are Christians! Atheists are the minority so teaching creationism would be pushing beliefs on a lot less people then what is currently being taught. I think both sides should be taught in schools. However the scientific view of creation should be taught as a THEORY ONLY…because that’s what it is. Creationism should ALSO be taught as a theory albeit in an additional class that is optional. BOTH should weigh the pros and cons, though. Neither theory is scientifically proven or disproven, and both have evidence to support them over the other.

86. fishing4monkeys - September 15th, 2008 at 4:46 am

Both sides are kind of an extreme of a median view, though. Who’s to say that the 2 ‘theories’ don’t intermingle? The ‘big bang’ could have been God’s way of creating the universe. If you believe in God then you believe that he created everything including the smallest atoms sooo…

87. Ghidoran - September 15th, 2008 at 4:48 am

This is ridiculous. There is already an argument about this ON A GAMING WEBSITE. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards.....c=45424536

I linked to two of this site’s lists. Guess which

88. Matt Howard - September 15th, 2008 at 5:06 am

@ Courtney

PLEASE don’t label evolution as a ‘theory’ in a derogatory way. As explained before, evolution happened. There are not only masses of evidence in the fossil record that evolution happened, but cases of actual observed evolution happening during our life time (the moth case during the industrial revolution). Evolution is NOT only a theory. Evolution is the fact. The theory that explains how evolution occurred is natural selection, the ‘un-random’ selection of species based on their fitness due to random mutation.

Also, to clear up what a ‘theory’ is. It is NOT one step up from a guess. A theory does not exist in a hierarchy like;
1. lie
2. guess
3. theory
4. fact

A theory seeks to explain and interpret the worlds data i.e. scientific evidence. Please stop confusing theory and guess.

Thanks

89. Daniel - September 15th, 2008 at 5:08 am

I say NO to creationism, and further suggest that diplomas held religious school nuts should not hold the same water as public/private schools UNLESS they meet all state curriculum requirements on atop what they try to brainwash their kids with.

90. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 5:10 am

When I went to school we were taught the Roman, Greek and Egyptian myths about how the world was created, science had nothing to do with these teachings. It did me, and countless others, no harm whatsoever to be taught these beginnings but they were taught as myths and fables not fact. The difference with Creationism is that there are people alive who believe it to be true which is fair enough if they keep it within their own circles.

@ courtney 59 Christianity: in the beginning there was an ultimate being that created everything.

You find this more believable than the big bang theory where everything came from nothing, yet the God had to have been created first, he had to come from nothing unless he had a God that created him etc.etc.

And as Einstein said regarding theories “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right but just one experiment can prove me wrong” that is why in science theories remain as theories.

91. Matt Howard - September 15th, 2008 at 5:20 am

Thanks, Tom, for touching on Popper’s falsification theory. One of the aspects that defines a true science is the possibility it can be falsified. As with creationism/intelligent design, no possible way of falsifying it can be proposed. Just one aspect that relegates it to psuedo-science.

It is also true about the infinite regression that belief in a creator entails. Who made God, who made that God and the God before it, so on and so forth. I think that is more ludicrous than the Big Bang ‘theory’. Also, the current age of the universe than is accepted by the vast majority of science (13.7 billion years), has been mathematically calculated to the best of our ability, and more or less proven. Just another piece of evidence to support the big bang. And that’s not even mentioning the background microwave radiation left over from it.

Cheers

92. JB - September 15th, 2008 at 5:21 am

Yes, why not?

start with this, then tell childs about the Flying Spaggety Monster, then about the Holow Earth, the Hartmann Lines, Feng Shui, psicomagic, astrology and go on…
All of this in natural science lessons, of course. Creationism doesn’t have any more scientist value than those pseudosciences, so ¿why don’t teach them also?

You’ll get one of this:
1: a herd of fool followers that will make whatever you want
2: Childs that won believe in anything told in school and hence a massive school failures.

@85. fishing4monkeys:
atheism is to a believe as bald is a hair color.
Nobody is telling your childs in what to believe but teaching how to use their brain. If you don’t want them to learn that don’t bring them to school.

@86. Yes, of course. But that’s a believe so must be learned in philosophy or religion lessons not in natural sciences.

93. JB - September 15th, 2008 at 5:41 am

I know some people find “harmless” to tell child when learning evolution that some people believe in creationism.

But there’s a good one.
Mahmud Ahmadineyad and some authoritist govertments denies the holcaust. So by the same way in history lessons shall also be told that “some people believe that holocaust didn’t happen”. Is that also a harmless lesson?

Don’t be so fool to say I’m comparing creationism with holocaust.

94. Foxy - September 15th, 2008 at 5:42 am

Here’s an idea, from a European perspective: here in Romania, Religious Education classes are mandatory in school for 12 years. The students who are not Orthodox are not compelled to attend. I belong to a small Catholic minority and we were offered RE classes by our local church. I do not know what the case is for other religious groups, but they also have the opportunity to study their own faith if they want to.

For students who do not have this possibility (out of logistic reasons: lack of teachers or places of reunion) or for those who declare they are not interested in any form of religious education (they must bring a statement from their parents or legal guardians for this), schools offer other types of classes on civil education, the environment, etc.

I enjoyed RE at my Church very much because we had a very patient and understanding teacher and because we were free to discuss anything on the topic and ask all the questions we wanted. One of our lessons was precisely on Creationism/ Evolutionism/ Fixism. The Catholic Church does not support fixist theories (that the world was created in exactly 6 days, and animals and humans just popped up with no link between them). It is only logical to think that the Book of Genesis was written 5000 years ago and Moses (it is said that the Genesis was revealed to him) would have had no idea about the Big Bang. The Catholic Church does not reject any scientific theories with regard to the creation of the Universe. God could’ve made it any way He wanted.

Now, leaving my classes aside, I believe it is very important for students to be encouraged to explore their spirituality. However, they should be made aware of other religious view points and, when presented with a theory that is supported by the religious group they belong to, thei teacher should bring logical and rational arguments to support it. Also, it is crucial for schools to offer at least some basic knowledge of the history of religions and to point out how fanaticism and fundamentalism are a dangerous part of EVERY religion and what their consequences were.

I do not agree with school prayer. Your conversations with God are personal and should stay that way.
I do not agree with dictatorial approaches such as “because I said so” or “it’s in the Bible”. Everything in the Bible has a reason for being there, so explain why!
I do not agree with removing religious symbols from schools, as long as all religious faiths are respected.

95. Foxy - September 15th, 2008 at 5:47 am

BTW, if you read the Genesis closely, you will see that the animals are created in the exact order of evolution Darwin suggested. And to begin with, Darwin did not come to contradict religion in any way and he was not an atheist.

96. Mortal Light - September 15th, 2008 at 5:53 am

I think it’s funny how many of the posters think them self intelligent because the accept the theory of evolution over creationism, yet they don’t quite understand the concept that they are commenting about. What the author of this article is proposing is that creationism, like Greek mythology, should be taught as social studies. He is not saying that it should be taught as a science alongside evolution or that it should get preferential treatment over other religions; he is merely saying that it should be taught to offer perspective to children, just as Shakespeare is taught in schools now. I think the majority of the commenters above saw evolution and creationism in the same paragraph and flew off into a rant before actually reading the view that was presented to them.

97. lott79 - September 15th, 2008 at 5:55 am

regardless of what’s right and what’s wrong, they both should be taught in school, but only in a fashion of letting the children pick which they’d like to learn

98. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 5:56 am

As Matt says about the age and background radiation they help to strengthen the theory, theories make predictions about how things work, everytime a prediction is proved correct it reinforces the theory but never proves it. The LHC is hoping to find a Higgs Boson particle, these have never been seen but are predicted to have been present in the billionths of a second after the Big Bang, if they are found it confirms part of the theory but doesn’t prove it or disprove it.

With creationism the facts are changed to fit the theory. The dinosaur bones were artificially aged by God to test our faith etc. That way a theory can never be proved wrong so it should never be taught as a subject. Religion teaches faith so that is where it should stay.

99. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am

Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Isn’t that how many people view creationism?

Particles-to-people evolution uses the big bang and millions of years as a starting point for interpreting the evidence found in the universe, within a scientific framework.

Creationism uses the Word of God as the starting point for interpreting the evidence found in the universe, within a scientific framework.

With this in mind, can either truly be taught as FACT?

Both seem to be matters of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

Could they not be taught for what they are, taking all evidence into account and giving both sides a chance to present their case rather than one being taught over the other. People are smart enough to come to their own conclusions

100. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:01 am

@Mortal Light

the thing is that creationism is taught as science in certain parts of the USA (I believe) and evolution can’t be taught.

I’m sure I’ll be told if I’m wrong

101. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:02 am

“With creationism the facts are changed to fit the theory. The dinosaur bones were artificially aged by God to test our faith etc. That way a theory can never be proved wrong so it should never be taught as a subject. Religion teaches faith so that is where it should stay.”

It could be said that many times evoltionary fact has been changed to fit a new hypothesis or new evidence. I don’t know of any serious, credible creationist who believers God artificially aged dinosaur bones.

102. Mortal Light - September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am

@Tom

That is true, and it is also wrong. Like you said, creationism cannot be substantiated with scientific evidence, so it is completely wrong to teach it as science. Even if there is some scientific proof, only the leading theories, i.e. those that have the most evidence, are taught in the science the majority of lab-based science classes. Because the biggest piece of evidence supporting the Christian belief of creationism is a book that may or may not be a primary source, it cannot be taught as science. It should be taught as a philosophy course or alongside western history, as the Bible had a large influence on the culture and govenments in Europe.

103. Adrianne - September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am

Creationism is pure nonsense. Religion is not acceptable in school under any condition. I was in school, and no christian kid had atheism pushed on them. Furthermore, if christian parents truly believe that they are raising their children right, and that they follow the “one true god”, then they should not be worried about what their kids learn in life. Sheltering children is just a cop out. They call it good parenting to deny their child any viewpoint but their own. Teach your children EVERYTHING, then show them the right way. Don’t expect my children to believe your nonsense, and I won’t expect yours to believe mine. But your children should be educated. Evolution is a viable theory that is backed up by non-religious reasoning. I’m sure Christians would have a heart attack if someone proposed Zoroastrianism in school. Your religion is no better than the others, nor it is any more “right.” You can keep Jesus, but shut up to the rest of us. Quite frankly, if your God is real, and is actually like you say he is, I think I’ll skip it thanks.

104. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am

Stizzy, Evolution tries to stick to the observed facts. Creationists change facts to reinforce their theories. one should be taught one shouldn’t until they accept observable facts

105. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am

@ Foxy:

“And to begin with, Darwin did not come to contradict religion in any way and he was not an atheist.”

Though he did become one.

———————————————————–

@ lott79:

“they both should be taught in school, but only in a fashion of letting the children pick which they’d like to learn”

Are you kidding? Kids wouldn’t know what to pick. Evolution isn’t even taught till highschool level, neither should religious studies wich would mean creationism. If it’s taught in the context of religion that’s fine but it should be strongly differentiated from evolution.

Also if creationism is to be taught, the dark side should also be taught, which is the attack on science by deception.

Check these vids out: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

There’s 13 in all, so set aside some time.

106. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am

“Stizzy, Evolution tries to stick to the observed facts. Creationists change facts to reinforce their theories. one should be taught one shouldn’t until they accept observable facts”

Is it the facts being changed or the interpretation of the facts? Many times an interpretation of observable facts is changed to suit new evidence. Evolution is a growing theory right? Therefore it is liable to change some things when new evidence arises.

Can Creationists be criticised for doing the same?

Pilt Down Man was viewed as evidence that man evolved from an ape like ancestor and for 40 years it was believed as fact. New evidence showed it was a hoax, hence interpretations had to be changed.

107. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am

It could be said that many times evoltionary fact has been changed to fit a new hypothesis or new evidence

a scientific theory will evolve as the evidence builds, a creationist theory will already have all the answers to begin with as they are in the Bible and can’t be changed

108. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:10 am

“a scientific theory will evolve as the evidence builds, a creationist theory will already have all the answers to begin with as they are in the Bible and can’t be changed”

It will not have all the answers, it will have a starting assumption which is that the Word of God is true and evidence should be interpreted in light of that.

Just like modern evolutionary theory has the big bang, millions of years and chance processes as the starting assumption with all evidence interpreted in light of that.

109. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 6:12 am

@ stizzy (104):

The pilt down man has been known to be a hoax for a long time.
But many more finds have proven to be genuine, in fact originally all the bones of pre-human species would only fit on a pool table, but now you need a whole pool.

And creationists don’t change their “facts” because the bible doesn’t change.

110. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am

Also what I should’ve added is that what’s being interpreted is the scientific evidence. Whether its fossils, geological strata etc etc, these things that can be seen and tested are interpreted through the means i stated above. So to say that creationism can’t be substantiated by any scientific evidence doesn’t really fly.

If the bible is the starting point, there is archeological, historical and scientific evidence that can be used. It just depends on what assumptions you’re bringing to the evidence.

111. Matt Howard - September 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am

@ MortalLight

At the beginning of my first post I actually commented that a lot of people missed the point of jfrater’s argument, then went on to discuss why creationism should be taught in school based solely on the controversy surrounding the ‘theory’. When discussing creationism, however, the need to discuss evolution and how it differs in both philosophy and scientific rigour is imperative. Why so? Simply because creationists are trying to elevate creationism to the level of evolution with the express goal of having it taught alongside evolution as an equal theory. Hence, it becomes necessary to state the argument for evolution as to why it is a genuine science, and why creationism is NOT.

@ Stizzy

I disagree with your statement that evolution has been changed to fit a new hypothesis. I agree that theories about natural selection/inherited traits/gene development have been changed, and rightly so, in order to accommodate new discoveries or new ways of finding out how evolution occurs. However, the fundamental evolutionary fact of random mutation directly influencing ‘un-random’ natural selection has always remained the same.

112. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am

“The pilt down man has been known to be a hoax for a long time.
But many more finds have proven to be genuine, in fact originally all the bones of pre-human species would only fit on a pool table, but now you need a whole pool.”

What fossils have been proven to be genuine? And like I said, for 40 years scientists believed pilt down man wasn’t a hoax.

The fossils found are either fully ape or fully human, no transitionals have been found. And even when a fossil has been found of an ape like creature that appears to be bipedal, it is only for short distances and they have curled fingers for swinging through trees (i.e Lucy)

113. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am

If the bible is the starting point, there is archeological, historical and scientific evidence that can be used. It just depends on what assumptions you’re bringing to the evidence.

what about the Koran and all the other religious books they don’t agree with the biblical account of creation yet scientists the world over favour evolution.

114. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am

Trouble is that any new thinking on any theory in science goes through the “Peer Review” process which is absolutely brutal and eventualy the scientific community accepts it or drops it on the scientific method standard.

Creationism goes through no peer review.

115. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am

“And creationists don’t change their “facts” because the bible doesn’t change.”

Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.

116. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am

“Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.”

it is the best model that fits the facts, when it is proved wrong it will be accepted as being wrong. The facts won’t be changed to keep it going

117. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am

@ stizzy:

“Evolutionary scientists dont change their “facts” because the “fact” that a Big Bang and evolution occured doesn’t change.”

Yea, because new discoveries don’t point contrast or challenge those theories.

118. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am

“what about the Koran and all the other religious books they don’t agree with the biblical account of creation yet scientists the world over favour evolution.”

Many scientists do favour creationism.

The Quran agrees with the biblical account on many cases, but the Quranic account of creation is vary vague and in some cases it doesn’t agree.

As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.

“Creationism goes through no peer review.”

How do you know creationism goes through no peer review? And if a creationist tried to put his thesis through the normal scientific peer review, they would dismiss it not on the grounds of its scientific evidence but simply because its creationist. There is a strict bias here. I’m aware of creationist bodies that do indeed put their work through a peer review process.

119. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 6:21 am

Since aspects of evolution have been demonstrably proven both in the lab and in the field, those aspects of evolution are as solid as the theory of gravity.

Note that gravity is still a theory, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, nor should one deny the profound signs (finds/evidence) of evolution.

Creationism is based on blind faith, is unscientific and should not be taught in school as anything but religious studies.

120. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am

“Yea, because new discoveries don’t point contrast or challenge those theories.”

Many discoveries do contrast and challenge these theories but they are either swept under the rug, the experiments themselves are criticised as being “flawed” or the new evidence is reinterpreted in a way that fits the evolutionary model.

For example, the RATE group did radiometric dating studies on rocks produced from the mt saint helens eruption, knowing how old the rocks should be (as radiometric dating “clocks” begin once the rock has cooled) yet the results gave figures of millions of years for rocks that were only a few decades old. And these results were presented alongside tests done on other rocks that were already meant to be millions of years.

Also theres the soft tissue reportedly found in a t-rex bone. Evolutionary theory is at a loss to explain this so will instead challenge that the tissue is what it appears to be.

“it is the best model that fits the facts, when it is proved wrong it will be accepted as being wrong. The facts won’t be changed to keep it going”

Is it truly the BEST model that fits the facts? Or is that an assumption that many people make without actually checking for themselves whether it appears to be the best model.

121. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am

“As for other religious books, not all religions can be true but all can be wrong.” Hallelujah

122. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:30 am

“For example, the RATE group did radiometric dating studies on rocks produced from the mt saint helens eruption, knowing how old the rocks should be (as radiometric dating “clocks” begin once the rock has cooled) yet the results gave figures of millions of years for rocks that were only a few decades old. ”

Can you give any sources for rocks that are a few decades old

123. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am

Another issue is the Copernican Principle, that no where in space is any more different or special than another. Space is defined like the surface of an inflating balloon with the galaxys on the surface. You can never truly find the centre. This can’t be proved but it’s assumed to be fact because no one wants to believe that the Earth and our solar system is in any way special but who can really challenge that it is?

“Since aspects of evolution have been demonstrably proven both in the lab and in the field, those aspects of evolution are as solid as the theory of gravity.

Note that gravity is still a theory, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking that gravity doesn’t exist, nor should one deny the profound signs (finds/evidence) of evolution.

Creationism is based on blind faith, is unscientific and should not be taught in school as anything but religious studies.”

What aspects of evolution have been proven in a lab? If you’re talking about macro-evolution, it is a process that takes millions of years and therefore can’t be observed in a lab.

Micro-evolution or natural selection can be observed, but natural selection doesn’t prove particles-to-person evolution. That is about adaptation and Creationists don’t deny adaptation.

Many evolutionary hypothesese are too based on blind faith, because its based on things that can’t actually be observed. Wouldn’t that too be blind faith?

124. Tom - September 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am

I found the article and will read it now http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

125. fishing4monkeys - September 15th, 2008 at 6:35 am

JB:

What? So what would you call it? Take this sentence for example:

“I believe there is no God”

What word would you substitute for ‘believe’? Seems like it fits to me…
You say that if you don’t want your child to learn something then don’t take them to school…what!? So Math, Science, Language, etc. should just be thrown out the window because one theory is accepted over another? Great logic there.

BOTH are theories because they BOTH have evidence to support them. However the Bible isn’t considered a good source in the scientific community because it is often misinterpreted. Keep in mind that it was written before anyone knew what atoms or molecules were so not everything can be taken literally.
As for evolution well…how is it any more reliable from a scientific standpoint? Archeologists have found metal tools fit for use by modern human hands and obviously made by an intelligent mind (ie. not an ape) that are found to be dated to time when intelligent humans didn’t exist yet…

126. DoppHopper - September 15th, 2008 at 6:39 am

“What aspects of evolution have been proven in a lab? If you’re talking about macro-evolution, it is a process that takes millions of years and therefore can’t be observed in a lab.”

I’m going to have to find the examples in that book, i’ll have to get back to you.

“Many evolutionary hypothesese are too based on blind faith, because its based on things that can’t actually be observed. Wouldn’t that too be blind faith?”

You can’t call it blind faith, you can’t call it faith at all, science doesn’t permit faith. The fossil record and genetics are substantial evidence for many evolutionary hypotheses.

Remembering that absolute truth is unattainable by humans, science is a self correcting process. As more evidence is found the theories change to fit. The refinement of theories are about becoming ever accurate.

127. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 6:44 am

“You can’t call it blind faith, you can’t call it faith at all, science doesn’t permit faith. The fossil record and genetics are substantial evidence for many evolutionary hypotheses.

Remembering that absolute truth is unattainable by humans, science is a self correcting process. As more evidence is found the theories change to fit. The refinement of theories are about becoming ever accurate”

The Big Bang and macro evolution are things that can’t be observed, and many scientific hypothesese are formed around the idea that those things have occured, and they believe this through faith. Because faith is based on what you can’t see with your own eyes. Like I can honestly say that many people accept what they are taught, whether religious or scientific, based on faith and not on their own research. We put our faith in scientists who are meant to know better because other scientists say so.

The fossil record shows that many creatures were buried by strata and water, preserved in the rock. Whether this is evolution or creationism depends on how you interpret the evidence. You don’t find transitional creatures in the fossil record and therefore where is the substantial evidence?

Not to mention fossil formation doesn’t have to take millions of years anyway.

And you have to question any concept of “truth” in an evolutionary world. How can you define truth?

128. McClure - September 15th, 2008 at 6:56 am

All religions are the conglomeration of theories that have developed beyond their moralistic content to the point that cognitive dissonance has deprived the majority of the world’s poulation of their ability to tell mythology from history. All mythologies were religions at one point; what makes the ones in vogue today any different?

129. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 7:06 am

“All religions are the conglomeration of theories that have developed beyond their moralistic content to the point that cognitive dissonance has deprived the majority of the world’s poulation of their ability to tell mythology from history. All mythologies were religions at one point; what makes the ones in vogue today any different?”

Pretty bold statement to make isn’t it? That ALL religions are the conglomeration of theories? And is it really fair to say that people who are religious can’t tell the difference between myth and history?

I can’t speak for other people but its not blind faith that holds me to my beliefs, and its not a case of not being able to tell the difference. For me, the evidence stands but no evidence can prove the existance of a God, because if there were an omnipotent God, any evidence that “proved” his existence would be to say that the evidence has more power than that God. Therefore a measure of faith is required.

Were all mythologies truly religious at one point? And even if they were, that doesn’t prove that all religions were once myths. Take for example todays comic books, in several 1000 years, people could look back at these and believe that they were based on religions even though we know they weren’t.

130. dlcuervo - September 15th, 2008 at 7:08 am

This is an extremely volatile issue. And one which is strewn with misconceptions, and bags of heat with very little light. I am a Lutheran. I was taught that there are two kingdoms. The kingdom of Heaven, and the kingdom of the world. The Bible teaches about the Kingdom of God, while science teaches about the kingdom of the world. The two kingdoms do meet, but we have insufficient knowledge on both sides to tell exactly where that happens. The Bible is not a science text, and science is not a religious text. I have no trouble merging both, so long as they maintain honesty when they overreach outside of their base. When religious folks try to impress their beliefs on the scientific community, they are as wrong as the scientists who claim there is no God because science proves it. I say a pox on both of their houses when they try to exclude the other.

131. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 7:10 am

Well said dlcuervo,

I believe to oust evolution in favor of creationism or vice versa would be wrong.

Shared dialogue is the best way forward. Both should be allowed to equally present their viewpoints.

132. Randall - September 15th, 2008 at 7:28 am

NO, Creationism should NOT be taught in schools.

Let’s all be honest about this and cut the bullshit. Extremist Christians KNOW they are peddling nothing but a falsehood in this… it is quite simply a backdoor way of getting THEIR belief system back into the mainstream, in order to overthrow science. And why? Because in their fundamentalist moronic heads, they cannot STAND the idea that the words of the Bible could be wrong, and thus their idiotic LITERAL interpretation of it could be wrong. Unable to loose themselves from this literalism, they see science as a challenge to their notion of reality, and so they will do ANYTHING to undermine it and dispose of it. It isn’t about gaining “fairness” or having “equal time.” All that malarkey (invalid anyway) is simply cover so they can gain the victory they feel they need, and start us on the rollback away from rationalism and logical reasoning.

We should never take this lightly. They have poured a lot of energy and money into pushing this agenda, and into framing REAL science itself as a “biased system.” It’s just like the game Cryptozoologists play with *their* belief system, painting skeptics as so-called “scoftics” — i.e., turning the argument around to make the skeptic look like the irrational, unreasonable one with an axe to grind and an agenda to promote. The very same tactic is used by Creationists, only in their case it’s more serious. It’s no great challenge to civilization if a few devotees who believe strongly in Bigfoot want to go around trying to undermine the scientific credentials of skepticism in regards to their cherished belief. The argument is really small potatoes, and will never have a huge impact on the culture overall. But Creationism is a far more broad, sweeping issue. It is simply the resurgence of Christian mysticism and dogma that not only challenged science, but repressed and stifled it for centuries.

It’s easy for us to sit here with our technology and modern cities and whatnot and think we can’t possibly be teetering on some brink of barbarism, but in fact we damn well could be. The mistake is in thinking that “barbarism” means people living in wigwams and tents, filthy and degraded, going around killing and plundering. That may be what we think of as the ultimate picture of barbarism, but it’s simply the end-result. The real and pressing danger to civilization is when it starts to collapse over into rigidity, ignorance, enervation, and general lack of confidence in itself.

Our civilization is based on this innate confidence in the grouping of factors that makes us “western” in the broad historical and cultural sense. Individuality, freedom, belief in certain rights, an innate faith in the rational and the knowable, and a confidence in the capabilities of science, as a tool, to illustrate and unmask the universe for us. Extremist Christian dogma goes against almost ALL of these, but it particularly assails rationality and reason, and the fundamental basis of science. And the reason, of course, is because extremist Christianity cannot co-exist with science. Ordinary Christianity can, because the two are divorced from one another. But when one’s base sense of reality is grounded ENTIRELY in a mystical, untouchable, and non-empirical view, then what the rest of us call scientific fact becomes an enemy factor to that view, totally in opposition to it. How can a view that holds as fact that the world is only 6000 years old be in ANY WAY squared with the *scientific* fact that the world is actually 4.5 billion years old?

Creationism isn’t simply somebody else’s “equally valid” worldview that “should be respected.” It is, in fact, in total opposition to the base tenets of what makes us civilized. It is dogma over rationality.

These things happen slowly… so we don’t necessarily see it. And with our ever-increasing and sophisticated technology, we have this strange faith, it seems, that things CAN’T POSSIBLY roll back. Put these two factors together and we’re *blind* to the danger. But in fact the danger is right here and it’s real. It’s foolish to take small steps down the path to barbarism and ignorance just because we think it can’t do any harm. The harm happens in aggregate and sometimes is slow to manifest itself. But historically we’ve seen it before.

133. Crut - September 15th, 2008 at 7:30 am

“You gotta love how people will be all about teaching the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but then demand strict proof of Creationism before it can be taught.”

Did anyone order the retard? We got a whole plateful of retard here, but I don’t think any of us ordered it.

134. Stizzy - September 15th, 2008 at 7:34 am

Bit of an aggressive reponse Randall. Seems a bit more hate filled than rational. Why is that? An