Creationism vs. Evolution in School

[Mavorpen]

The school and the teachers working there should be the ones to decide what they teach and if the parents disapprove, send the child to a different school. Personally I think Creationism is no better than believing that there really is a tooth fairy which collects disused molars and sells them off on the cheap to dentists in North Korea.

Don't be silly. The tooth fairy idea is much more plausible.

[Great Nepal]

The school and the teachers working there should be the ones to decide what they teach and if the parents disapprove, send the child to a different school. Personally I think Creationism is no better than believing that there really is a tooth fairy which collects disused molars and sells them off on the cheap to dentists in North Korea.

So the schools and teachers should be decide to teach intelligent falling rather than gravity if they want?

[Heavenly Peace]

The school and the teachers working there should be the ones to decide what they teach and if the parents disapprove, send the child to a different school. Personally I think Creationism is no better than believing that there really is a tooth fairy which collects disused molars and sells them off on the cheap to dentists in North Korea.

So the schools and teachers should be decide to teach intelligent falling rather than gravity if they want?

If they want, but I highly suspect that if they did no one would dare send their child to the school, thus the school has an incentive to teach things that are actually true.

[Individuality-ness]

So the schools and teachers should be decide to teach intelligent falling rather than gravity if they want?

If they want, but I highly suspect that if they did no one would dare send their child to the school, thus the school has an incentive to teach things that are actually true.

Yeah, no, in reality? That doesn't happen.

[Ausiranaa]

If they want, but I highly suspect that if they did no one would dare send their child to the school, thus the school has an incentive to teach things that are actually true.

Yeah, no, in reality? That doesn't happen.

I just say... let them believe what they want. I'm actually attempting my best to employ churches that have school programs, free or not. So, the students will be learning on how THEY choose. I say the parents should choose, to an extent. Once the child reaches an age, I say let it be on how they want it.

[Individuality-ness]

Yeah, no, in reality? That doesn't happen.

I just say... let them believe what they want. I'm actually attempting my best to employ churches that have school programs, free or not. So, the students will be learning on how THEY choose. I say the parents should choose, to an extent. Once the child reaches an age, I say let it be on how they want it.

No. You do not teach religious mythology alongside a scientific theory and therefore imply that it is of equal weight to peer review, the scientific method, and multiple studies on the subject. That's not how it works.

[Great Nepal]

Yeah, no, in reality? That doesn't happen.

I just say... let them believe what they want. I'm actually attempting my best to employ churches that have school programs, free or not. So, the students will be learning on how THEY choose. I say the parents should choose, to an extent. Once the child reaches an age, I say let it be on how they want it.

Except there is this reality which doesn't really give two shit about what people want to believe. There is correct and scientific theory and stupid idea that cant even be considered hypothesis.

Its not about choice, its about facts against fiction.

[Heavenly Peace]

I just say... let them believe what they want. I'm actually attempting my best to employ churches that have school programs, free or not. So, the students will be learning on how THEY choose. I say the parents should choose, to an extent. Once the child reaches an age, I say let it be on how they want it.

Except there is this reality which doesn't really give two shit about what people want to believe. There is correct and scientific theory and stupid idea that cant even be considered hypothesis.

Evolution can't be axiomatically correct or a fact if it is still only regarded as theory.

Its not about choice, its about facts against fiction.

So should the freedom of religion be revoked too? Who are we to tell people what they can and cannot believe? Whilst I agree that Creationism is silly fantasy it is for the parents, as responsible adults and consumers, to decide how they raise their children and what they are taught.

[Great Nepal]

Except there is this reality which doesn't really give two shit about what people want to believe. There is correct and scientific theory and stupid idea that cant even be considered hypothesis.

Evolution can't be axiomatically correct or a fact if it is still only regarded as theory.

Read the underlined.

Its not about choice, its about facts against fiction.

So should the freedom of religion be revoked too? Who are we to tell people what they can and cannot believe? Whilst I agree that Creationism is silly fantasy it is for the parents, as responsible adults and consumers, to decide how they raise their children and what they are taught.

I really dont care what people believe in private, they can believe they farted thus creating universe and everything within it. Problem comes when it is included in schools.
School should not be teaching things that are not science in science lessons.

[Bodobol]

Science>Fiction.

[Individuality-ness]

Except there is this reality which doesn't really give two shit about what people want to believe. There is correct and scientific theory and stupid idea that cant even be considered hypothesis.

Evolution can't be axiomatically correct or a fact if it is still only regarded as theory.

Anyone who is scientifically literate would know that when you're talking about a theory, you're pretty high up there, and that in order to be considered one, the evidence for it has to be pretty solid.

Also, gravity is a theory too. Should we start teaching intelligent falling now (to borrow another NSer's retort)?

Its not about choice, its about facts against fiction.

So should the freedom of religion be revoked too?

Freedom of religion =! teaching the book of Genesis in public schools. In fact, teaching creationism in public schools would be a violation of the establishment clause as given to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. So stop being a hypocrite.

Who are we to tell people what they can and cannot believe? Whilst I agree that Creationism is silly fantasy it is for the parents, as responsible adults and consumers, to decide how they raise their children and what they are taught.

Why the fuck would I want to force atheism on people? We're going to teach them science in the classrooms. Which means no, we will not teach creationism or intelligent design or the idea that autism is caused by vaccines or other pesudoscience bullshit. End of story.

[Caecuser]

Except there is this reality which doesn't really give two shit about what people want to believe. There is correct and scientific theory and stupid idea that cant even be considered hypothesis.

Evolution can't be axiomatically correct or a fact if it is still only regarded as theory.

Its not about choice, its about facts against fiction.

So should the freedom of religion be revoked too? Who are we to tell people what they can and cannot believe? Whilst I agree that Creationism is silly fantasy it is for the parents, as responsible adults and consumers, to decide how they raise their children and what they are taught.

So do you have the same attitude toward Atoms and Gravity?


And, yes, perhaps it should be in the area of scientific learning. People should not have the right to misinform their children and deny them an actual scientific understanding. Religious indoctrination is horrible, truly.

[Salandriagado]

Except there is this reality which doesn't really give two shit about what people want to believe. There is correct and scientific theory and stupid idea that cant even be considered hypothesis.

Evolution can't be axiomatically correct or a fact if it is still only regarded as theory.

"Theory" is not in any way a word which can be described as "only". It is the single highest level of information in science. Additionally, evolution itself is an observed fact. I, and probably several other people in this thread, have personally observed it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is why things evolve.

Its not about choice, its about facts against fiction.

So should the freedom of religion be revoked too? Who are we to tell people what they can and cannot believe? Whilst I agree that Creationism is silly fantasy it is for the parents, as responsible adults and consumers, to decide how they raise their children and what they are taught.

No, you can believe whatever you like. But you do not get to use schools to brainwash others into believing it.

[Sociobiology]

Yeah, no, in reality? That doesn't happen.

I just say... let them believe what they want. I'm actually attempting my best to employ churches that have school programs, free or not. So, the students will be learning on how THEY choose. I say the parents should choose, to an extent. Once the child reaches an age, I say let it be on how they want it.

the parents do choose the kids learn evolution in school and if they are so inclined they take the children to the church of their choice.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

I'm neither creationist or evolutionist, and that puts me in a position to call both flawed. Evolution doesn't work unless there is a starting organism, and the only excepted idea is one that was laughed out of science decades ago: spontaneous generation. Creationism on the other hand, tries to ignore over a century of discovery. Many Christians--such as myself--have tried to end this irreverent argument, as it only causes needless animosity between religion and science. Also, remember that there are many Christian scientists in biology and geology, and very few participate in this B.S.

Ah... So you reject evolution because you don't understand it...

[Sociobiology]

I'm neither creationist or evolutionist, and that puts me in a position to call both flawed. Evolution doesn't work unless there is a starting organism, and the only excepted idea is one that was laughed out of science decades ago: spontaneous generation. Creationism on the other hand, tries to ignore over a century of discovery. Many Christians--such as myself--have tried to end this irreverent argument, as it only causes needless animosity between religion and science. Also, remember that there are many Christian scientists in biology and geology, and very few participate in this B.S.

Ah... So you reject evolution because you don't understand it...

That would be the reason everyone that rejects it does so.

[Xsyne]

Ah... So you reject evolution because you don't understand it...

That would be the reason everyone that rejects it does so.

Nah, a few of them want to milk money from gullible people.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Ah... So you reject evolution because you don't understand it...

That would be the reason everyone that rejects it does so.

I don't know... There might be some people out there who do understand it, that reject it solely because it conflicts with their religious belief...

[Bundesdeutschland]

One of these things is actual, like, fact (or as close as) and should be taught in science classes and stuff.

The other is creationism.

The fact that evolution is taught in science classes and stuff means absolutely nothing.

[Bundesdeutschland]

Evolution in school only because there is evidence of it, not because of some "atheist culture movement".

It's basically what atheists and agnostics have thought of. What was Charles Darwin? An agnostic. Really the only people supporting this are atheists and agnostics from what I see.

[Divair]

One of these things is actual, like, fact (or as close as) and should be taught in science classes and stuff.

The other is creationism.

The fact that evolution is taught in science classes and stuff means absolutely nothing.

Yea, we choose to teach kids bullshit in school just to see their reaction.


Right, guys? Right?

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

One of these things is actual, like, fact (or as close as) and should be taught in science classes and stuff.

The other is creationism.

The fact that evolution is taught in science classes and stuff means absolutely nothing.

Oui, it does.
Evolution is fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains how it happens.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Evolution in school only because there is evidence of it, not because of some "atheist culture movement".

It's basically what atheists and agnostics have thought of. What was Charles Darwin? An agnostic. Really the only people supporting this are atheists and agnostics from what I see.

I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

[Ifreann]

One of these things is actual, like, fact (or as close as) and should be taught in science classes and stuff.

The other is creationism.

The fact that evolution is taught in science classes and stuff means absolutely nothing.

Quite. Evolution would be science even if somehow it wasn't being taught in science classes.

[Bundesdeutschland]

The fact that evolution is taught in science classes and stuff means absolutely nothing.

Oui, it does.
Evolution is fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains how it happens.

Things taught in school are just crap these days; you can't always trust what they say, can you? You really can't tell what is fact and what is faux these days.