Creationism in Public Schools

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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


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.

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.

I ask you, what use is there in repeating this exercise in our higher level biology courses year in year out?

[Necroghastia]

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.

Setting aside how evolution does not deal with how life began, how in the world is it less interesting than "God did such and such on the Nth day?" It's the true story of survival of the fittest, of how nature shaped such creatures as the platypus, barreleye, and narwhal. How a line of animals waltzed out of the sea, then turned around and waltzed right back in. How the descendants of terrifying lizards became a staple food for the most dominant creature on Earth. How forests stood dead and yet refused to rot.

It's so fucking cool.

[Neanderthaland]

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


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.

Sure, unless they're any religion other then yours, any denomination of your religion that disagrees with creationism, or have a brain in their heads. Then what you're doing is offensive.

[Tekania]

I'm willing to compromise. We will allow creation to be taught in schools, as long as it's evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution and the Deity elements are left out.

[Geneviev]

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

Setting aside how evolution does not deal with how life began, how in the world is it less interesting than "God did such and such on the Nth day?" It's the true story of survival of the fittest, of how nature shaped such creatures as the platypus, barreleye, and narwhal. How a line of animals waltzed out of the sea, then turned around and waltzed right back in. How the descendants of terrifying lizards became a staple food for the most dominant creature on Earth. How forests stood dead and yet refused to rot.

It's so fucking cool.

This is a matter of opinion more than anything, but God making everything by simply speaking and then making people with his hands is so much more fun.

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.

Sure, unless they're any religion other then yours, any denomination of your religion that disagrees with creationism, or have a brain in their heads. Then what you're doing is offensive.

Then evolution is still being taught.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

I ask you, what use is there in repeating this exercise in our higher level biology courses year in year out?

Please answer me.

[Geneviev]

I ask you, what use is there in repeating this exercise in our higher level biology courses year in year out?

Please answer me.

That's part of learning critical thinking.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Please answer me.

That's part of learning critical thinking.

It's not working. Especially with children.

[Rastrian]

Which kind?

Be more specific, please.

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

I mean, functionally, there's little difference. Both believe that god created everything, and that, at the very least, he "guided" evolution. There is no evidence for that, and so it is scientifically of absolutely no merit.

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

But you believe in the literal account of Genesis, right? Textbook definition of fundamentalist.

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

No! It's not! It means that at least half of the time which could have been spent dealing with actual biology is instead spent looking over a dusty set of religious myths which don't stand up to science. And as they would be taught equally, some would walk away thinking that both are as sensible as each other, which is so damaging for a child, especially when they find out after their education that one was blatantly wrong to begin with. Plus, how would examinations work? "Oh yes, Jimmy, you gave an answer, so that's correct, because we can't prove it isn't"? Or would it just be the Christian narrative and the proper science? Teaching creation in the science classroom will do nothing but hinder future generations.

This is a matter of opinion more than anything, but God making everything by simply speaking and then making people with his hands is so much more fun.

Why though?

"God did this" versus "this happened for [X] reason and through [Y] mechanism". One is actually engaging to critical thinking skills, the other is tantamount to learning a story by rote.

[Neanderthaland]

Sure, unless they're any religion other then yours, any denomination of your religion that disagrees with creationism, or have a brain in their heads. Then what you're doing is offensive.

Then evolution is still being taught.

You don't seem to get that some people have a problem with teaching children lies. It doesn't matter if you teach them accurate information too. Teaching them lies is still teaching them lies.

And creationism is a lie. Pure and simple.

[The Free Joy State]

Please answer me.

That's part of learning critical thinking.

No, that is called eroding critical thinking.

Teaching easy answers by rote like "God did it" and "were you there" and pushing anything that can't be explained as "God", a "miracle", "it can't be explained" and "man was not meant to know" does not teach critical thinking -- it destroys critical thinking.

Creationism does not encourage children to look for their own answers, to find out more about the universe (my earliest education taught it; I should know) -- as critical thinking does. It teaches children to recite that God did it, fossils were caused by the flood and to deride any who say otherwise as anti-God (in an attempt to shut out opposing views).

[Rastrian]

Then evolution is still being taught.

You don't seem to get that some people have a problem with teaching children lies. It doesn't matter if you teach them accurate information too. Teaching them lies is still teaching them lies.

And creationism is a lie. Pure and simple.

If I taught in a school that George Washington was either the First President of the United States or a basketball player from Boston, it wouldn't matter that I'm teaching the truth as part of the course. I would have spent some of the time teaching a blatantly inaccurate set of beliefs. Who cares whether George Washington slam-dunking the ball into the hoop, thus gaining a point over Great Britain and winning the American Revolutionary Championships is cool or not, it's blatantly untrue, and I wouldn't want my hypothetical children being taught that.

[Geneviev]

That's part of learning critical thinking.

It's not working. Especially with children.

What do you mean?

Which kind?

Be more specific, please.

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

I mean, functionally, there's little difference. Both believe that god created everything, and that, at the very least, he "guided" evolution. There is no evidence for that, and so it is scientifically of absolutely no merit.

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

But you believe in the literal account of Genesis, right? Textbook definition of fundamentalist.

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

No! It's not! It means that at least half of the time which could have been spent dealing with actual biology is instead spent looking over a dusty set of religious myths which don't stand up to science. And as they would be taught equally, some would walk away thinking that both are as sensible as each other, which is so damaging for a child, especially when they find out after their education that one was blatantly wrong to begin with. Plus, how would examinations work? "Oh yes, Jimmy, you gave an answer, so that's correct, because we can't prove it isn't"? Or would it just be the Christian narrative and the proper science? Teaching creation in the science classroom will do nothing but hinder future generations.

This is a matter of opinion more than anything, but God making everything by simply speaking and then making people with his hands is so much more fun.

Why though?

"God did this" versus "this happened for [X] reason and through [Y] mechanism". One is actually engaging to critical thinking skills, the other is tantamount to learning a story by rote.

1. Evangelical, not fundamentalist.
2. Teaching creation in a different class should solve that problem. Either history or religion.
3. If you study the evidence for creation outside of Genesis, it does become more interesting than evolution.

Then evolution is still being taught.

You don't seem to get that some people have a problem with teaching children lies. It doesn't matter if you teach them accurate information too. Teaching them lies is still teaching them lies.

And creationism is a lie. Pure and simple.

Creationism isn't a lie to a lot of people. If someone has a problem with it, they could homeschool or something too.

That's part of learning critical thinking.

No, that is called eroding critical thinking.

Teaching easy answers by rote like "God did it" and "were you there" and pushing anything that can't be explained as "God", a "miracle", "it can't be explained" and "man was not meant to know" does not teach critical thinking -- it destroys critical thinking.

Creationism does not encourage children to look for their own answers, to find out more about the universe (my earliest education taught it; I should know) -- as critical thinking does. It teaches children to recite that God did it, fossils were caused by the flood and to deride any who say otherwise as anti-God (in an attempt to shut out opposing views).

Hopefully if it's taught together with evolution, students can decide for themselves what they believe instead of this.

[Rastrian]

1. Evangelical, not fundamentalist.

Explain the difference please. I imagine there's functionally no difference, but I want to hear it from you so I don't misrepresent your position.

2. Teaching creation in a different class should solve that problem. Either history or religion.

Uh, religion. It's not history either. Teaching creation myths in a religious studies classroom is the best way to do it, and thus other religions would get their stories out there too. As a historian myself and a teacher in training, I would not even think about teaching creationism in my classes.

3. If you study the evidence for creation outside of Genesis, it does become more interesting than evolution.

1: Define 'evidence'.
2: Show me what evidence there is for creation.
3: Show me how that is more interesting than the actual story of the origins of species.

I was a creationist, once upon a time. Until I started actually researching evolution. It's insanely interesting. I can pretty much guarantee you have little clue on what evolution is, and what science has to say about it, and I really do think you should research that before making these kinds of statements.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Setting aside how evolution does not deal with how life began, how in the world is it less interesting than "God did such and such on the Nth day?" It's the true story of survival of the fittest, of how nature shaped such creatures as the platypus, barreleye, and narwhal. How a line of animals waltzed out of the sea, then turned around and waltzed right back in. How the descendants of terrifying lizards became a staple food for the most dominant creature on Earth. How forests stood dead and yet refused to rot.

It's so fucking cool.

This is a matter of opinion more than anything, but God making everything by simply speaking and then making people with his hands is so much more fun.

No. No it fucking isn’t. Ignorance might be bliss to you, but it comes interspersed with a wide variety of unpleasant surprises.

Sure, unless they're any religion other then yours, any denomination of your religion that disagrees with creationism, or have a brain in their heads. Then what you're doing is offensive.

Then evolution is still being taught.

Stop trying to plop creationism out as deserving in any way of equal stature to Evolutionary Theory.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Then evolution is still being taught.

You might've as well douse oil on a raging fire and proclaim that this action is helping. Teaching creationism as dogma in any class will irreversibly stunt any attempts to teach biology.

[The Free Joy State]

No, that is called eroding critical thinking.

Teaching easy answers by rote like "God did it" and "were you there" and pushing anything that can't be explained as "God", a "miracle", "it can't be explained" and "man was not meant to know" does not teach critical thinking -- it destroys critical thinking.

Creationism does not encourage children to look for their own answers, to find out more about the universe (my earliest education taught it; I should know) -- as critical thinking does. It teaches children to recite that God did it, fossils were caused by the flood and to deride any who say otherwise as anti-God (in an attempt to shut out opposing views).

Hopefully if it's taught together with evolution, students can decide for themselves what they believe instead of this.

Evolution is not a faith, based upon belief. It is a scientific theory -- which, unlike the general misuse of the word "theory" -- means something that is supported by a large amount of evidence and repeatedly tested and verified, observable and testable under controlled conditions.

"Theory" is misused in general parlance to mean a "guess". Evolution is not a guess. There is no need to give it equal weight with creationism.

It would be like having diagrams of a flat-earth next to a globe and pushing holocaust denial in history classes on the holocaust. There's no need to, because the ideas have no equal weight.

Many here would be content to have creationism in schools -- in a religious education class discussing all creation myths. Not science.

[Geneviev]

1. Evangelical, not fundamentalist.

Explain the difference please. I imagine there's functionally no difference, but I want to hear it from you so I don't misrepresent your position.

2. Teaching creation in a different class should solve that problem. Either history or religion.

Uh, religion. It's not history either. Teaching creation myths in a religious studies classroom is the best way to do it, and thus other religions would get their stories out there too. As a historian myself and a teacher in training, I would not even think about teaching creationism in my classes.

3. If you study the evidence for creation outside of Genesis, it does become more interesting than evolution.

1: Define 'evidence'.
2: Show me what evidence there is for creation.
3: Show me how that is more interesting than the actual story of the origins of species.

I was a creationist, once upon a time. Until I started actually researching evolution. It's insanely interesting. I can pretty much guarantee you have little clue on what evolution is, and what science has to say about it, and I really do think you should research that before making these kinds of statements.

1. Evangelicals and fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally, but fundamentalists tend to be much more conservative and separated from society and evangelicals aren't so extreme.
2. Then religion.
3. The evidence is in the fossil record.
4. It's just more interesting to me because it's more true to me.

This is a matter of opinion more than anything, but God making everything by simply speaking and then making people with his hands is so much more fun.

No. No it fucking isn’t. Ignorance might be bliss to you, but it comes interspersed with a wide variety of unpleasant surprises.

Then evolution is still being taught.

Stop trying to plop creationism out as deserving in any way of equal stature to Evolutionary Theory.

1. It is to me.
2. Creation and evolution aren't equal, but a lot of people believe in both.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

3. The evidence is in the fossil record.

This will be true when the first creationist, incontrovertibly and without fraudulence demonstrates the first Pre-Cambrian rabbit. In reality however, the fossils, the DNA of every living being, the cells that runs through your body, your very own anatomy all conspire together to destroy the credibility of creationist dogma.

[Rastrian]

Okay Geneviev. Do this for me.

Let's say you get your way. Creation and evolution are taught equally. Let's say, to deal with confusion (as if it'd work) that half of the school year is dedicated to each. Biology classes given all throughout high school, let's say that you have to deal with teaching students creationism for around five semesters.

What would your lesson plan be for that, approximately? Given there'd be about 15 weeks' with of study, how would you fill out that time in teaching creationism?

I know how I'd do it for evolution, I want to hear your ideas.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

3. The evidence is in the fossil record.

This will be true when the first creationist, incontrovertibly and without fraudulence demonstrates the first Pre-Cambrian rabbit. In reality however, the fossils, the DNA of every living being, the cells that runs through your body, your very own anatomy all conspire together to destroy the credibility of creationist dogma.

Which all together combined either points to Last Thursday-ism by an indubitably malevolent creator or evolution... Gee I wonder which it is.

[Geneviev]

3. The evidence is in the fossil record.

This will be true when the first creationist, incontrovertibly and without fraudulence demonstrates the first Pre-Cambrian rabbit. In reality however, the fossils, the DNA of every living being, the cells that runs through your body, your very own anatomy all conspire together to destroy the credibility of creationist dogma.

They're still trying to find something like that.

Okay Geneviev. Do this for me.

Let's say you get your way. Creation and evolution are taught equally. Let's say, to deal with confusion (as if it'd work) that half of the school year is dedicated to each. Biology classes given all throughout high school, let's say that you have to deal with teaching students creationism for around five semesters.

What would your lesson plan be for that, approximately? Given there'd be about 15 weeks' with of study, how would you fill out that time in teaching creationism?

I know how I'd do it for evolution, I want to hear your ideas.

It would be about the same as what is in Christian homeschool curriculum now.

[Onitsha Empire]

Not having more creationism is precisely why we are heading towards an age of Hobbesian destruction.

[The Free Joy State]

Okay Geneviev. Do this for me.

Let's say you get your way. Creation and evolution are taught equally. Let's say, to deal with confusion (as if it'd work) that half of the school year is dedicated to each. Biology classes given all throughout high school, let's say that you have to deal with teaching students creationism for around five semesters.

What would your lesson plan be for that, approximately? Given there'd be about 15 weeks' with of study, how would you fill out that time in teaching creationism?

I know how I'd do it for evolution, I want to hear your ideas.

It would be about the same as what is in Christian homeschool curriculum now.

You mean:

1) No transitional fossils exist:

"Though evolutionists have been searching for transitional fossils for more than 100 years, they have found none,"

That's a lie, BTW.

2) Nessie exists and disproves evolution

Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short, has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

3) People who believe in evolution are lying

"Because evolutionists do not want to believe the only alternative – that the universe was created by God – they declare evolution is a fact and believe its impossible claims without any scientific proof!"[...] We have a risen Christ, unquestionable proofs and, as if we needed it, God has thrown in a host of inarguable evidences all around us!"

4) Humans and dinosaurs lived together

“Biblical and scientific evidence seems to indicate that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time…. Fossilized tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, also give evidence that men and dinosaurs existed simultaneously. [...]That dinosaurs existed with humans is an important discovery disproving the evolutionists’ theory that dinosaurs lived 70 million years before man. God created dinosaurs on the sixth day. He created man later the same day.”

You want kids learning this? In Science?

[Rastrian]

It would be about the same as what is in Christian homeschool curriculum now.

Which one? I can find loads, mostly behind a paywall.
Just give an overview on what would be focused on each week/lesson.