Creationism in Public Schools

[The Free Joy State]

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?

It depends on how big the school is. In my high school, school assemblies (no prayer was involved) were taken by one of the school leadership team and my R.E. by one of the humanities' teachers (who was agnostic). In many state schools, with larger teams, this isn't that unusual.

But I do get what you mean, in smaller schools -- especially religious schools -- with small teams, this would not necessarily be the case. My early education had literally zero religious neutrality, and biased religious education is still a problem. I personally would like to see more inspectors doing more checks (and more surprise checks).

That said, while I acknowledge there are flaws, if the curriculum does not provide opportunities to learn about world religions -- and if inspectors do not check how it's taught (in all schools: state and private, secular and religious) -- how else will those with very religious parents have early exposure to belief sets that are not their parents' -- including humanism'?

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.

How fascinating... I do love learning new things.

Now, I'm sure you have a statistician's report in an unbiased peer-reviewed scientific journal to back this up (such as Nature, Science or Systematic Biology)

[Ifreann]

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.

Wow, over 1 trillion to 1. When you shuffle a deck of cards, do you know what the odds are of getting the cards in the exact arrangement they end up in? 80 unvigintillion, 658 vigintillion, 175 novemdecillion, 170 octodecillion, 943 septendecillion, 878 sexdecillion, 571 quindecillion, 660 quattuordecillion, 636 tredecillion, 856 duodecillion, 403 undecillion, 766 decillion, 975 nonillion, 289 octillion, 505 septillion, 440 sextillion, 883 quintillion, 277 quadrillion, 824 trillion to 1.

[Nordengrund]

Intelligent Design, sure. I don't see a problem if evolution is being taught and the teacher or textbooks say "Some people believe that evolution and natural processes occurred but were designed and implemented by an intelligent creator," and then move on.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Perhaps parents who want it could pay extra to have their children taught horseshit.

[Rojava Free State]

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.

There is no proof some big dude in the sky said "let there be shit" and everything existed either, yet you choose to believe that

[The Free Joy State]

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.

There is no proof some big dude in the sky said "let there be shit" and everything existed either, yet you choose to believe that

Ah, I see you have "The Bible as Narrated by Samuel L. Jackson" version.

[The Grims]

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.

Wow, over 1 trillion to 1. When you shuffle a deck of cards, do you know what the odds are of getting the cards in the exact arrangement they end up in? 80 unvigintillion, 658 vigintillion, 175 novemdecillion, 170 octodecillion, 943 septendecillion, 878 sexdecillion, 571 quindecillion, 660 quattuordecillion, 636 tredecillion, 856 duodecillion, 403 undecillion, 766 decillion, 975 nonillion, 289 octillion, 505 septillion, 440 sextillion, 883 quintillion, 277 quadrillion, 824 trillion to 1.

Lower. Cards can be handed over in different orientations.

[Ifreann]

Intelligent Design, sure. I don't see a problem if evolution is being taught and the teacher or textbooks say "Some people believe that evolution and natural processes occurred but were designed and implemented by an intelligent creator," and then move on.

"Some people believe, wrongly..."

[The Grims]

Intelligent Design, sure. I don't see a problem if evolution is being taught and the teacher or textbooks say "Some people believe that evolution and natural processes occurred but were designed and implemented by an intelligent creator," and then move on.

But that is not what Intelligent Design is. ID is a specific set of teachings by the Discovery Institute, largely referencing Behe and Dembski.

Not the general "perhaps there was a creator".

[Salandriagado]

Wow, over 1 trillion to 1. When you shuffle a deck of cards, do you know what the odds are of getting the cards in the exact arrangement they end up in? 80 unvigintillion, 658 vigintillion, 175 novemdecillion, 170 octodecillion, 943 septendecillion, 878 sexdecillion, 571 quindecillion, 660 quattuordecillion, 636 tredecillion, 856 duodecillion, 403 undecillion, 766 decillion, 975 nonillion, 289 octillion, 505 septillion, 440 sextillion, 883 quintillion, 277 quadrillion, 824 trillion to 1.

Lower. Cards can be handed over in different orientations.

Assuming that there aren't any upside down cards, and that your shuffling is truly random, then you need to multiply that by 4,503,599,627,370,496. If you allow for upside down cards as well, multiply that by another 4,503,599,627,370,496.

[Salandriagado]

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?

It depends on how big the school is. In my high school, school assemblies (no prayer was involved) were taken by one of the school leadership team and my R.E. by one of the humanities' teachers (who was agnostic). In many state schools, with larger teams, this isn't that unusual.

But I do get what you mean, in smaller schools -- especially religious schools -- with small teams, this would not necessarily be the case. My early education had literally zero religious neutrality, and biased religious education is still a problem. I personally would like to see more inspectors doing more checks (and more surprise checks).

That said, while I acknowledge there are flaws, if the curriculum does not provide opportunities to learn about world religions -- and if inspectors do not check how it's taught (in all schools: state and private, secular and religious) -- how else will those with very religious parents have early exposure to belief sets that are not their parents' -- including humanism'?

I was thinking more of primary schools, yeah.

And the issue here is more that the curriculum doesn't expose people to humanism at all. It exposes them to Christianity, and to other religions as a "this is what other people believe", but that's about it.

Intelligent Design, sure. I don't see a problem if evolution is being taught and the teacher or textbooks say "Some people believe that evolution and natural processes occurred but were designed and implemented by an intelligent creator," and then move on.

Why waste time? Should the textbook also say "some people believe that the moon landings were fake"?

[The Free Joy State]

Intelligent Design, sure. I don't see a problem if evolution is being taught and the teacher or textbooks say "Some people believe that evolution and natural processes occurred but were designed and implemented by an intelligent creator," and then move on.

But that is not what Intelligent Design is. ID is a specific set of teachings by the Discovery Institute, largely referencing Behe and Dembski.

Not the general "perhaps there was a creator".

Indeed.

"A creator -- or uncaused cause -- set evolution in process" is the watchmaker argument.

[Salandriagado]

Intelligent Design, sure. I don't see a problem if evolution is being taught and the teacher or textbooks say "Some people believe that evolution and natural processes occurred but were designed and implemented by an intelligent creator," and then move on.

But that is not what Intelligent Design is. ID is a specific set of teachings by the Discovery Institute, largely referencing Behe and Dembski.

Not the general "perhaps there was a creator".

Specifically, ID is an attempt to sneak creationism into science lessons by using fancy words.

[Ifreann]

Lower. Cards can be handed over in different orientations.

Assuming that there aren't any upside down cards, and that your shuffling is truly random, then you need to multiply that by 4,503,599,627,370,496. If you allow for upside down cards as well, multiply that by another 4,503,599,627,370,496.

Clearly playing cards were created by God.

[The Free Joy State]

It depends on how big the school is. In my high school, school assemblies (no prayer was involved) were taken by one of the school leadership team and my R.E. by one of the humanities' teachers (who was agnostic). In many state schools, with larger teams, this isn't that unusual.

But I do get what you mean, in smaller schools -- especially religious schools -- with small teams, this would not necessarily be the case. My early education had literally zero religious neutrality, and biased religious education is still a problem. I personally would like to see more inspectors doing more checks (and more surprise checks).

That said, while I acknowledge there are flaws, if the curriculum does not provide opportunities to learn about world religions -- and if inspectors do not check how it's taught (in all schools: state and private, secular and religious) -- how else will those with very religious parents have early exposure to belief sets that are not their parents' -- including humanism'?

I was thinking more of primary schools, yeah.

And the issue here is more that the curriculum doesn't expose people to humanism at all. It exposes them to Christianity, and to other religions as a "this is what other people believe", but that's about it.

I did learn about humanism (at least in lower high school) But I'm going back a little while now, and it's possibly been pushed out of the curriculum. Which it shouldn't be.

[Nordengrund]

But that is not what Intelligent Design is. ID is a specific set of teachings by the Discovery Institute, largely referencing Behe and Dembski.

Not the general "perhaps there was a creator".

Indeed.

"A creator -- or uncaused cause -- set evolution in process" is the watchmaker argument.

I thought ID was just simply about God creating everything but being vague about how Je does it, so He could do it either as described in the Bible or guided the evolution process.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

There is no proof some big dude in the sky said "let there be shit" and everything existed either, yet you choose to believe that

Ah, I see you have "The Bible as Narrated by Samuel L. Jackson" version.

I've had it with these motherfucking snakes in this motherfucking garden.

[Estanglia]

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.

We should not be teaching lies, and acting as if Creationism and Evolution (not Evolutionism, whatever the fuck that is) as if they are in any way equal does a disservice to students.

---

I aggree with this gentlemen. If we are going to teach the science of evolution, why not teach the science of creationism?

There is none.

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 should not come at the cost of teaching lies, even if we teach them 'fairly'.

---

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.

Teaching them outright lies is worse than teaching them just one side of this discussion (a discussion, by the way, that only continues to exist because people refuse to accept that they're wrong).

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

Evolution is not a philosophy.

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.

Because we should not even teach them a lie in the first place even if it is easily debunkable. As antivaxxers are proving, no amount of evidence will stop people from believing lies if they want to believe those lies. Not teaching them the lies in the first place seems like the best option.

---

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.

Got any examples of scientists saying that they know that the universe just occurred out of nowhere?

Energy cannot create itself from nothing and the chances of earth being perfectly suitable for life is over 1 trillion to one.

With how huge the universe is, that chance isn't as small as it seems.

[New Legland]

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.

1. 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. 2. Energy cannot create itself from nothing and 3. the chances of earth being perfectly suitable for life is over 1 trillion to one.

1. Except there is.

2. The current consensus is that the laws of physics were created after the Big Bang, so that wouldn't apply here.

3. And the observable universe is about 93 billion light years across. If the chances for planets suitable for life existing are only over 1 trillion to 1 (citation needed), things are looking pretty good for life elsewhere in the universe.

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

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

What is this thought process?

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

Looks like someone hasn't been researching.

[The Grims]

Indeed.

"A creator -- or uncaused cause -- set evolution in process" is the watchmaker argument.

I thought ID was just simply about God creating everything but being vague about how Je does it, so He could do it either as described in the Bible or guided the evolution process.

That confusion is exactly what the ID crowd hopes.

[Spodehaven]

No. Unless the class has to do with actual religion. But in an actual bio class, there is no reason to talk about creationism.

[Hammer Britannia]

No. Unless the class has to do with actual religion. But in an actual bio class, there is no reason to talk about creationism.

B... But, evolution is just a theory

Therefore, my fact that a omnibenevolent Child Murderer created everything is true

(ftr: Not talking about Christians in General, just the radicals who take everything in the Bible literally)

[United Muscovite Nations]

Indeed.

"A creator -- or uncaused cause -- set evolution in process" is the watchmaker argument.

I thought ID was just simply about God creating everything but being vague about how Je does it, so He could do it either as described in the Bible or guided the evolution process.

It depends what you mean by Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Design movement is definitely that, but there's also a philosophical position often called Intelligent Design which basically means that natural processes were predetermined by a creator/uncaused cause.

[New Legland]

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.

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.

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.

3. The evidence is in the fossil record.

You're telling me that the only counter you have to all of the other evidence for evolution (which includes the fossil record), is the fact that there are some fossils we haven't found yet? That isn't even "evidence" for creationism, that's "evidence" against evolution, yet you're assuming that the falsehoods in Genesis are the only other possibility. And that's without even talking about the mounds of evidence against creationism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

Wow, over 1 trillion to 1. When you shuffle a deck of cards, do you know what the odds are of getting the cards in the exact arrangement they end up in? 80 unvigintillion, 658 vigintillion, 175 novemdecillion, 170 octodecillion, 943 septendecillion, 878 sexdecillion, 571 quindecillion, 660 quattuordecillion, 636 tredecillion, 856 duodecillion, 403 undecillion, 766 decillion, 975 nonillion, 289 octillion, 505 septillion, 440 sextillion, 883 quintillion, 277 quadrillion, 824 trillion to 1.

This of course relies on the assumption that the results of card shuffling are truly random, which it is not.