Creationism in Public Schools

[Jolthig]

This. Can I sig this?

Go for it!

Kowani, you should be proud people are digging you a lot. now.

[New Lindale]

If we are going to teach the science of evolution, why not teach the science of creationism?

Not a thing.

It will offer the balance which is lacking in a majority of society, and that is the presentation of both sides of a discussion without distortion or strawmen.

Balance?
Yes, I too want to be taught a balance of truth and lies, that'll make me a more rounded person.

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion. The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives. If Creationism is truly a lie, then why not let it be taught? Its absurdity in your opinion will be able to be debunked by Evolution easily. This could go either way.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I aggree with this gentlemen. If we are going to teach the science of evolution, why not teach the science of creationism? It will offer the balance which is lacking in a majority of society, and that is the presentation of both sides of a discussion without distortion or strawmen.

Creation science is an oxymoron.

I always find it kind of funny in that... schadenfreude kind of way when creationists propose increasing the light of speed to the point where a 6000 year old universe would be possible (and still yield us starlight from all corners of the universe). Had the speed of light been that fast Earth would've literally been boiled away as the Sun itself started radiating with 800 million times its normal intensity.

[The Alma Mater]

Not a thing.


Balance?
Yes, I too want to be taught a balance of truth and lies, that'll make me a more rounded person.

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion.

Then why do you only want to teach TWO sides, instead of the literally millions that exist ?

[Kowani]

Go for it!

Kowani, you should be proud people are digging you a lot. now.

I am proud! My sharp wit cuts what my rhetoric cannot!

[Jolthig]

Not a thing.


Balance?
Yes, I too want to be taught a balance of truth and lies, that'll make me a more rounded person.

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion. The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives. If Creationism is truly a lie, then why not let it be taught? Its absurdity in your opinion will be able to be debunked by Evolution easily. This could go either way.

It's not so much of an echo chamber if you have a basic understanding of science. The way biologists, geologists, zoologists, and other people from various fields studied the process of evolution was through empirical means. To specify, they studied the similarities and differences of certain species of animals whether ancient or modern, and through observations of micro evolution, they theorized the concept of macroevolution with the fossil record and geology (through the separate continents) lending strong empircal evidence for the theory of macroevolution.

Young earth creationism on the other hand lacks empircal evidence as it only relies on a scripture and uses confirmation biases in it's so called "studies". Confirmation bias is frowned upon in science.

[Rastrian]

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion.

When that opinion is the one that is supported by facts, that's a good thing. Don't advocate for the teaching of blatant falsehoods.

The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives. If Creationism is truly a lie, then why not let it be taught? Its absurdity in your opinion will be able to be debunked by Evolution easily. This could go either way.

It has been, time and again. There is no-one other than the most hardline fundamentalist christians who still follow the ideas of creationism, and it is as much a conspiracy theory as the flat earth or chemtrails. This "debate" you seem to think is still going has long since passed. The only ones debating it are the ones charitable enough to spend time explaining why it's wrong.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not a thing.


Balance?
Yes, I too want to be taught a balance of truth and lies, that'll make me a more rounded person.

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion. The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives. If Creationism is truly a lie, then why not let it be taught? Its absurdity in your opinion will be able to be debunked by Evolution easily. This could go either way.

The problem is if you feed impressionable children lies then some poor fucker in higher level biology classes has to deal with irrationally smug "students" sabotaging the first three months of the course with asinine questions like "were u there huh???". If we didn't feed these lies to children in school professors of biology would have more time towards actually educating people instead of correcting ingrained falsehoods for three whole months every course... and sometimes... these people never learn and propagate these lies to their own children like a hereditary disease.

[Jolthig]

Creation science is an oxymoron.

I always find it kind of funny in that... schadenfreude kind of way when creationists propose increasing the light of speed to the point where a 6000 year old universe would be possible (and still yield us starlight from all corners of the universe). Had the speed of light been that fast Earth would've literally been boiled away as the Sun itself started radiating with 800 million times its normal intensity.

The sun would literally be a blue supergiant and not a yellow dwarf had their hypothesis on 6000 year light speed been true

[The Free Joy State]

Not a thing.


Balance?
Yes, I too want to be taught a balance of truth and lies, that'll make me a more rounded person.

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion.

There doesn't need to be a "pro" and "con" for everything when one option is wrong. Other examples of things that do not need to be taught, for this reason: holocaust denial, flat earth, and anti-vax views.

The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives.

Ahuh, evolution is not a religion, or a philosophy. It's a science.

There is evidence supporting evolution. There is none supporting creationism.

If you want creationism taught, it can be. Away from science, in religion classes -- alongside all other creation myths -- as a thing some people believe.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I always find it kind of funny in that... schadenfreude kind of way when creationists propose increasing the light of speed to the point where a 6000 year old universe would be possible (and still yield us starlight from all corners of the universe). Had the speed of light been that fast Earth would've literally been boiled away as the Sun itself started radiating with 800 million times its normal intensity.

The sun would literally be a blue supergiant and not a yellow dwarf had their hypothesis on 6000 year light speed been true :p

The universe would probs never have come into existence had c at any time been capable of delivering on a 6000 year old universe. Had somebody tried it would've been blown apart. Besides, you have to accelerate photons from different galaxies differently according to their distance to Earth... which results in all kinds of Lovecraftian insanity.

[Jolthig]

The sun would literally be a blue supergiant and not a yellow dwarf had their hypothesis on 6000 year light speed been true

The universe would probs never have come into existence had c at any time been capable of delivering on a 6000 year old universe. Had somebody tried it would've been blown apart.

Heck, we would still be barely in the big bang had creation science been true. Cosmic time is far different than our own perspective of time in our lives. 6000 years is like a millisecond or even less than, when it comes to cosmic time.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The universe would probs never have come into existence had c at any time been capable of delivering on a 6000 year old universe. Had somebody tried it would've been blown apart.

Heck, we would still be barely in the big bang had creation science been true. Cosmic time is far different than our own perspective of time in our lives. 6000 years is like a millisecond or even less than, when it comes to cosmic time.

Besides, you have to accelerate photons from different galaxies differently according to their distance to Earth... which results in all kinds of Lovecraftian insanity.

The true horror of solving the starlight problem the creationist way lies here actually...
<.< >.>

[Jolthig]

Heck, we would still be barely in the big bang had creation science been true. Cosmic time is far different than our own perspective of time in our lives. 6000 years is like a millisecond or even less than, when it comes to cosmic time.

Besides, you have to accelerate photons from different galaxies differently according to their distance to Earth... which results in all kinds of Lovecraftian insanity.

The true horror of solving the starlight problem the creationist way lies here actually...
<.< >.>

A true fallacy indeed.

[Tekania]

Not a thing.


Balance?
Yes, I too want to be taught a balance of truth and lies, that'll make me a more rounded person.

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion. The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives. If Creationism is truly a lie, then why not let it be taught? Its absurdity in your opinion will be able to be debunked by Evolution easily. This could go either way.

That is the problem here..... science isn't concerned with opinions. It's concerned with verifiable, demonstrable and testable facts.

[Tekania]

Heck, we would still be barely in the big bang had creation science been true. Cosmic time is far different than our own perspective of time in our lives. 6000 years is like a millisecond or even less than, when it comes to cosmic time.

Besides, you have to accelerate photons from different galaxies differently according to their distance to Earth... which results in all kinds of Lovecraftian insanity.

The true horror of solving the starlight problem the creationist way lies here actually...
<.< >.>

And that highlights, too why creationism can't even get its foot in the door of science. It's has nothing what-so-ever useful. It's straw-grasping unsubstantiated assertions that do nothing other than satisfy the creationists innate need for their religious interpretations to be true. And provides no demonstrable or testable and falsifiable model that can put to any scientific use what-so-ever.

[Infected Mushroom]

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution. No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

[Geneviev]

What I am implying is that if we just teaching one side of the discussion, then it will just create an echo chamber of more people having only one opinion.

When that opinion is the one that is supported by facts, that's a good thing. Don't advocate for the teaching of blatant falsehoods.

The Constitution although does not contain the buzz phrase 'separation of Church and state', it however mandates that Congress shall not require anyone to be of a particular religion, or impend the right of Freedom of Worship. So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives. If Creationism is truly a lie, then why not let it be taught? Its absurdity in your opinion will be able to be debunked by Evolution easily. This could go either way.

It has been, time and again. There is no-one other than the most hardline fundamentalist christians who still follow the ideas of creationism, and it is as much a conspiracy theory as the flat earth or chemtrails. This "debate" you seem to think is still going has long since passed. The only ones debating it are the ones charitable enough to spend time explaining why it's wrong.

It's not only the most hardline fundamentalist Christians, though. Although creation is becoming less popular among Christians, a lot of creationists are more moderate.

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution. No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

Agreed, it's just more interesting. Evolution can be taught too, but it's less fun.

[Rastrian]

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution. No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

Who cares what you'd "rather" hear about? Science is not tied to the whims of those who study it. I'd rather have learnt about writing and language than mathematics in schools, but schools don't teach students what they'd rather learn. They teach them what is relevant to life.

Teach creation stories, if you want to, in a religious education classroom. Keep the science classroom for, y'know, science.

It's not only the most hardline fundamentalist Christians, though. Although creation is becoming less popular among Christians, a lot of creationists are more moderate.

The fact that they are creationists proves that they aren't.

Agreed, it's just more interesting. Evolution can be taught too, but it's less fun.

Who cares what's more fun?! I want to learn true things in science, not myths.
Plus, evolution is actually really interesting. Much moreso than "god did it for no reason".

[Tekania]

Include the actual position that Creationists take. That origins should only be taught in philosophy or religious classes because that's what origins science is, both Creationism and Evolutionism are untestable, unrepeatable, unobservable hypothesizes where evidence must be looked at through a presuppositional worldview.

I'm not sure what this "Evolutionism" thing is... but theories of evolution in science are testable and repeatable.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution. No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

Agreed, it's just more interesting. Evolution can be taught too, but it's less fun.

Anybody who thinks biology is boring haven't watched Sir David Attenborough.

[Tekania]

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution. No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

Many people find fictional stories more entertaining than reality. It's just escapism psychology playing out. That is generally why the fiction sections in book stores and libraries are larger. People are generally more entertained by the unreal than hard reality.

[Europa Undivided]

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution. No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

Who cares what you'd "rather" hear about? Science is not tied to the whims of those who study it. I'd rather have learnt about writing and language than mathematics in schools, but schools don't teach students what they'd rather learn. They teach them what is relevant to life.

Teach creation stories, if you want to, in a religious education classroom. Keep the science classroom for, y'know, science.

It's not only the most hardline fundamentalist Christians, though. Although creation is becoming less popular among Christians, a lot of creationists are more moderate.

The fact that they are creationists proves that they aren't.

Which kind?

Be more specific, please.

The 6000 year old age bangers are like 1% kf creationists.

[Geneviev]

It's not only the most hardline fundamentalist Christians, though. Although creation is becoming less popular among Christians, a lot of creationists are more moderate.

The fact that they are creationists proves that they aren't.

Agreed, it's just more interesting. Evolution can be taught too, but it's less fun.

Who cares what's more fun?! I want to learn true things in science, not myths.
Plus, evolution is actually really interesting. Much moreso than "god did it for no reason".

I'm a creationist that's not a fundamentalist. That's kind of a stereotype.

Both should be taught. That way it's good for everyone.

[Jolthig]

Agreed, it's just more interesting. Evolution can be taught too, but it's less fun.

Anybody who thinks biology is boring haven't watched Sir David Attenborough.

I love biology. I enjoyed reading the first couple chapters of Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is