Creationism in Public Schools

[Matthewstownville]

The UK education system makes Religious Studies a compulsory subject until the end of secondary school, so is social Studies in the US. Biology or Science are also compulsory elements of most countries curriculums, so both are already taught and are only a small topic within each subject and should be taught in context with the wider topics of the subjects. I think there is too much emphasis on religion in the UK and it would probably be better if it were replaced by Social Sciences and the 'theory' of creationism could be taught within that and the 'theory' of evolution would be taught in Biology or Science. Emphasis should be placed on the fact these are theories and to use the evidence available as well as the research carried out by reputable academics. Neither should really dominate any school curriculum and students should be encouraged to make up their own mind based on the evidence available.

[Onitsha Empire]

You should have been taught comparative secular pro-social myths studies too. Unlike religion which can actually be factually accurate

And I thought “climate change was fake”,was going to be the most ridiculous thing I saw today.

they aren't even myths for they are often falsificable..and outright clearly false.

Citation needed.

The social left blatantly lie in order to deceive and benefit..so does the social right.

Citation needed.

Everyone benefits from everyone else being stupid enough to trust them.

“We shouldn’t trust scientists because reasons!”

Of course you haven't. Otherwise the world would have been full of Machiavellians and learned sociopaths.

Machiavelli would be disappointed with your surface level understanding.

Lol. I think we actually mosty agree in sentiments. I just hate this truth-hating and knowledge-hating world so much that I can't help but spread my cynicism everywhere.

Of course truth is good. Yet humanity treats it like trash. All major factions use untruths for the purpose of social signalling and taboo certain truths.

[Kowani]

And I thought “climate change was fake”,was going to be the most ridiculous thing I saw today.

Citation needed.
Citation needed.

“We shouldn’t trust scientists because reasons!”

Machiavelli would be disappointed with your surface level understanding.

Lol. I think we actually mosty agree in sentiments. I just hate this truth-hating and knowledge-hating world so much that I can't help but spread my cynicism everywhere.

Of course truth is good. Yet humanity treats it like trash. All major factions use untruths for the purpose of social signalling and taboo certain truths.

Oh. In that case, yeah. I’m gonna have to agree with you on that one.

[Neanderthaland]

So the argument is popularity ?

It's generally more important to understand what people around you believe, so yes.

In that case, why not teach racism? Plenty of people believe that. And it has just as much merit as Creationism.

[Geneviev]

It's generally more important to understand what people around you believe, so yes.

In that case, why not teach racism? Plenty of people believe that. And it has just as much merit as Creationism.

Racism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

[Page]

In that case, why not teach racism? Plenty of people believe that. And it has just as much merit as Creationism.

Racism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

Creationism harms people by making them ignorant, and no one who believes it could be called reasonable.

[Neanderthaland]

In that case, why not teach racism? Plenty of people believe that. And it has just as much merit as Creationism.

Racism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

You've just answered the question of why Creationism shouldn't be taught.

[Neanderthaland]

Racism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

Creationism harms people by making them ignorant, and no one who believes it could be called reasonable.

More than ignorance, it actively misleads them about what science is and how it works.

[Kowani]

In that case, why not teach racism? Plenty of people believe that. And it has just as much merit as Creationism.

Racism Creationism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

FTFY

[Godular]

Racism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

You've just answered the question of why Creationism shouldn't be taught.

Hat's off to the caveman with the savage argument.

Heh. Caveman. Savage.

[Europa Undivided]

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.

And somehow we are the only creatures with a sense of morality.

Plus, there is no harm in thinking that God created everything via the Big Bang unless if you militantly vehement at erasing the concept of God, because if you are, then you aren't reasonable either.

There is a difference between being religious and scientifically verdus being ultra fundie.

[Rastrian]

And somehow we are the only creatures with a sense of morality.

The current thinking is as such: We have morality because we, compared with most other animals, are very intelligent. We developed for a niche where the ability to form complex societal structures, co-operate and think at a higher level was valuable, and so those traits were naturally selected for. Morality is a part of that. However, there is some fairly new research which states that many animals may indeed possess a sense of right and wrong. Whether this research will stand the test of time or not, that remains to be seen.

Plus, there is no harm in thinking that God created everything via the Big Bang unless if you militantly vehement at erasing the concept of God, because if you are, then you aren't reasonable either.

No harm? Perhaps. Rational, reasonable and logical? No. There is no evidence for a theistic god. Deistic god, well that is a little bit of a grey area, but even then, the most successful argument for that is "well you can't disprove it".

[The Grims]

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.


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


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.


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.

And somehow we are the only creatures with a sense of morality.

Plus, there is no harm in thinking that God created everything via the Big Bang unless if you militantly vehement at erasing the concept of God, because if you are, then you aren't reasonable either.

There is a difference between being religious and scientifically verdus being ultra fundie.

Where did you get the incorrect idea that humans are thr only species with morality ? Many mammals have that.

[Salandriagado]

I think that students should hear both sides of the debate. After all, schools should equip kids to become critical thinkers and not everything about evolution makes sense.

There aren't two sides to the debate. There is reality, and there are fairy tales.

If students have questions about evolution, then they should address them to their biology teacher. More likely than not, the teacher will have the answer and the student will learn something valuable.

Yes, but we should allow the teachers to teach intelligent design as well. By only restricting them to one theory, we are not allowing the students to get all the answers they want.

No we aren't. We're restricting people's opinion to teach lies.

Yes, but we should allow the teachers to teach intelligent design as well. By only restricting them to one theory, we are not allowing the students to get all the answers they want.

I completely agree with this, but all theories should be taught. Not just intelligent design, but creation too.

Nope. You don't get to teach lies in schools. Note that "intelligent design" and "creation" are literally the same thing, except that the former was re-named in a pathetic attempt to make it seem more legitimate. Neither is a theory.

What about last tuesdayism? The theory that the entirety of the universe was created ex nihlo last Tuesday with all apparent age including any memories you may think you have from before that point?

Significantly more valid than most forms of creationism. Sure, it's completely unfalsifiable, but at least it isn't demonstrably false.

The US Supreme Court has not allowed creation science to be taught in public schools since 1968, when it invalidated an Arkansas law that didn't allow evolution to be taught in schools (Epperson v. Arkansas). The Supreme Court continued to encourage evolution instead of creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, in which it held teaching of creation science along with evolution to be unconstitutional. However, many scientists believe that there is more scientific evidence for creation.

Christian groups have attempted to bring creation science back into public schools since it was banned. South Carolina's House Bill 3826, while unsuccessful, proposed teaching creation science in schools. However, none of these attempts have been successful.

What do you think, NSG? Should public schools be allowed to teach creation science? Should they teach evolution and creation science? Or is creation science unconstitutional?

I think creation and evolution should both be taught equally so students in public schools can choose for themselves what they believe. Although it would be unconstitutional if only the Christian perspective is taught, other religions could also be taught.

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.

There is no "science of creationism", other than "it's not true", and that doesn't fill much class time.

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.

There is no discussion here. There is reality, and there are lies.

So, I think both philosophies of Creationism and Evolution should be taught, to provide both perspectives.

There aren't two perspectives, or two philosophies. There is reality, and there is mythology.

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.

Because:

1. Why the fuck would we waste time teaching lies? Do you want to teach about the four humours too?
2. The effectiveness of propaganda, especially on children, has little to nothing to do with its truth.
3. This is just a bare-faced attempt to allow "teachers" to force their preferred bullshit onto children, with no sense of balance whatsoever.

This could go either way.

No, it couldn't. Because one is science, and the other is mythology.

Why not?

It’s interesting. I’d rather hear about creation stories and Bible adventures then evolution.

Because schools are there to teach things, not peddle fairytales.

No one really knows how life really began anyways. We only have theories.

Shrugs

Don't lie.

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.

Don't lie.

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.

No, teaching dangerous lies is not good for anybody.

Please answer me.

That's part of learning critical thinking.

Are you really sure you want a "let's tear creationism apart in great detail" session in science lessons? I notice, in particular, that you entirely ignored me thoroughly debunking your last bunch of lies.

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

Why the fuck should you get to peddle lies in schools (and it's not a matter of opinion: that's a factual statement), while those of us who don't want to teach children lies have to go homeschool our kids?

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

You've got a fucking nerve repeating that lie after having it thoroughly debunked in this very thread.

3. The evidence is in the fossil record.

This one, specifically, was debunked in great detail in this very thread.

4. It's just more interesting to me because it's more true to me.

You don't get your own reality. It is factually untrue.

They're still trying to find something like that.

And have failed, in every way. You know what we call hypotheses that make predictions that turn out to be false? We call them "debunked".

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

So fuck all?

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

No, the existence of creationism is part of the reason we've got antibiotic-resistant bacteria all over the fucking place.

I'd prefer for it to be taught in a different class, and Nessie is nonsense, but other than that, yes.

All of it is nonsense. It is outright lies.

It would be better if someone who studied evolution and creation did that, which is why Christian curriculum that already exists would be best.

We already have this. They concluded that one was reality and the other was fairytales, and wrote the curriculum to teach reality.

In the UK, comparative religious education is found in schools -- state schools; it focuses on the main ones found in the country. It's not aimed at promoting religion, but outlining the beliefs with regards to various issues and then getting students to debate, discuss contrasting views and explore what they think.

"Not aimed at promoting religion".

I think there is too much emphasis on religion in the UK and it would probably be better if it were replaced by Social Sciences and the 'theory' of creationism could be taught within that and the 'theory' of evolution would be taught in Biology or Science. Emphasis should be placed on the fact these are theories and to use the evidence available as well as the research carried out by reputable academics.

They aren't both theories. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is bullshit.

In that case, why not teach racism? Plenty of people believe that. And it has just as much merit as Creationism.

Racism shouldn't be taught because it harms people and no reasonable person agrees with it.

The same is true of creationism.

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.


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


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.


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.

And somehow we are the only creatures with a sense of morality.

False, but never mind.

Plus, there is no harm in thinking that God created everything via the Big Bang unless if you militantly vehement at erasing the concept of God, because if you are, then you aren't reasonable either.

There absolutely is harm in teaching people to believe things with zero evidence.

[Patek Phillippe]

Creationism shouldn't be taught at all imo. Schools should only teach what we have solid evidence for: unless creationists have some evidence they would like to share, it doesn't meet that and shouldn't be taught.

Whether or not it's unconstitutional, I don't know.

See that is just the problem, there is no proof of the universe just occurring out of nowhere in the way scientists say it does. Energy cannot create itself from nothing and the chances of earth being perfectly suitable for life is over 1 trillion to one.

[Patek Phillippe]

There absolutely is harm in teaching people to believe things with zero evidence.

I remember thinking the exact same thing less than a year ago but since then supernatural things have been happening, I regularly see stills of the near future in my dreams and when I get to that point in time it hits me like a truck and there seems to be a lack of evidence for sciences explanation of creation, in fact there is more evidence for the christian story. I feel like there is definitely a god out there somewhere, not sure which religion it belongs to but there must be one.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Creationism shouldn't be taught at all imo. Schools should only teach what we have solid evidence for: unless creationists have some evidence they would like to share, it doesn't meet that and shouldn't be taught.

Whether or not it's unconstitutional, I don't know.

See that is just the problem, there is no proof of the universe just occurring out of nowhere in the way scientists say it does. Energy cannot create itself from nothing and the chances of earth being perfectly suitable for life is over 1 trillion to one.

The energy of the universe was created from the previous one dying

[Alvecia]

Creationism shouldn't be taught at all imo. Schools should only teach what we have solid evidence for: unless creationists have some evidence they would like to share, it doesn't meet that and shouldn't be taught.

Whether or not it's unconstitutional, I don't know.

See that is just the problem, there is no proof of the universe just occurring out of nowhere in the way scientists say it does. Energy cannot create itself from nothing and the chances of earth being perfectly suitable for life is over 1 trillion to one.

The scientific consensus as I understand it is that we don't know why the universe came into being, how it came to be as it currently is.
Models such as the Big Bang don't describe how the energy came from nowhere, just that how the energy expanded into the universe as we know it after it came into being.
It's entirely possible that the energy was all there before the Big Bang, but, as I mentioned, we don't know.

Sometime "I don't know" is the correct answer.

As to your last point:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

[The Free Joy State]

In the UK, comparative religious education is found in schools -- state schools; it focuses on the main ones found in the country. It's not aimed at promoting religion, but outlining the beliefs with regards to various issues and then getting students to debate, discuss contrasting views and explore what they think.

"Not aimed at promoting religion".

As you were quoting me (and I'm providing a back-link to prevent anything being taken out of context), I'll respond.

I am talking about R.E. -- religious education -- such as that mandated by the national curriculum and taught up to GCSE level (and forbidding Christianity and Catholic Christianity to be taught as the two comparative religions). Not collective worship and school assemblies -- which is what you linked to and is completely different.

FWIW, I am opposed to collective worship in schools, but don't compare comparative education (discussing religions found in society) and compulsory prayer.

It's no different a false comparison to a creationist comparing science and creationism.

[Salandriagado]

Creationism shouldn't be taught at all imo. Schools should only teach what we have solid evidence for: unless creationists have some evidence they would like to share, it doesn't meet that and shouldn't be taught.

Whether or not it's unconstitutional, I don't know.

See that is just the problem, there is no proof of the universe just occurring out of nowhere in the way scientists say it does. Energy cannot create itself from nothing and the chances of earth being perfectly suitable for life is over 1 trillion to one.

Stop lying.

[Salandriagado]

"Not aimed at promoting religion".

As you were quoting me (and I'm providing a back-link to prevent anything being taken out of context), I'll respond.

I am talking about R.E. -- religious education -- such as that mandated by the national curriculum and taught up to GCSE level (and forbidding Christianity and Catholic Christianity to be taught as the two comparative religions). Not collective worship and school assemblies -- which is what you linked to and is completely different.

FWIW, I am opposed to collective worship in schools, but don't compare comparative education (discussing religions found in society) and compulsory prayer.

It's no different a false comparison to a creationist comparing science and creationism.

The point being that the people running this collective worship are the same people doing the RE lessons. How many of them do you really think are completely separating the two and actually presenting things neutrally in the latter?

[Salandriagado]

There absolutely is harm in teaching people to believe things with zero evidence.

I remember thinking the exact same thing less than a year ago but since then supernatural things have been happening,

No they haven't.

I regularly see stills of the near future in my dreams and when I get to that point in time it hits me like a truck

Life being predicatable is not supernatural.

and there seems to be a lack of evidence for sciences explanation of creation, in fact there is more evidence for the christian story.

Stop fucking lying.

[Rojava Free State]

Emphasis should be placed on the fact these are theories and to use the evidence available as well as the research carried out by reputable academics. Neither should really dominate any school curriculum and students should be encouraged to make up their own mind based on the evidence available.

This is why we need to teach English better inside of schools. A scientific theory is not the same as a theory in colloquial english, and everytime someone says "well evolution is just a theory, they haven't proven it," I literally wanna let out a prarie scream. Scientific theories are a set of facts proven by numerous studies and tests that have been peer reviewed. The scientific theory of evolution doesn't equal " we think evolution may have happened and here is our guess as to how. " it means "we know evolution happened and here is how it happened."

There is way, WAY more evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution has been proven by numerous studies since the 1800s. Creationism is the work of minds that take the word of an ancient scroll by a bunch of Bedouin to be facts. Creationism is a myth. Evolution is real. What a false equivalence to teach evolution and creationism like they hold equal value. We need to teach children that creationism is garbage. If that triggers their parents so badly, they can pull their kid from public school and put them in a private Christian academy where they can learn fake history and pseudoscience till the cows come home. Our school system is supposed to educate our children for the world, not feed them trash that someone wanted taught because they think a random book must be true cause someone said God wrote it. America can't possibly start catching with the rest of the West and with east Asia till we start ACCEPTING science and stop with the lies and fairytales and conspiracy theories that too many people here believe in. Until then, we will be a backwater

[United Muscovite Nations]

The UK education system makes Religious Studies a compulsory subject until the end of secondary school, so is social Studies in the US. Biology or Science are also compulsory elements of most countries curriculums, so both are already taught and are only a small topic within each subject and should be taught in context with the wider topics of the subjects. I think there is too much emphasis on religion in the UK and it would probably be better if it were replaced by Social Sciences and the 'theory' of creationism could be taught within that and the 'theory' of evolution would be taught in Biology or Science. Emphasis should be placed on the fact these are theories and to use the evidence available as well as the research carried out by reputable academics. Neither should really dominate any school curriculum and students should be encouraged to make up their own mind based on the evidence available.

Most religious people, even in the United States, are not Young Earth Creationists, so it wouldn't make sense to teach it in religion classes.

[Rojava Free State]

there seems to be a lack of evidence for sciences explanation of creation, in fact there is more evidence for the christian story.

What evidence? Cause the bible said it so it must be true? Science can't explain everything because we are humans and really are limited in our knowledge of the entire universe, and this is exactly why science is right and religion is wrong. Who could possibly believe that humans could ever even grasp the desire of a cosmic entity? We know the word of God? Give me a break, we would be like ants to that entity. It wOuldn't even make sense that this being would want to interact with us. There is scientific evidence for evolution whether you believe it or not. There is no evidence for creationism except a 2000 year old book written when people still thought blood letting cured diseases