Creationism in Public Schools

[The Black Forrest]

Creationism encourages a culture of actively hating and refusing to listen to anyone who is educated, or works in academia. They teach children to disregard the opinions of professionals who have studied their whole lives, because what they say might contradict Creationism. Regardless of their field.

And if you don't think that has consequences beyond just being wrong about how old the Earth is, then you haven't been paying attention. There's a huge block of ignorant idiots in America that believe "liberal academics" are the enemy, and are lying to them about everything.

Creationism may encourage questioning science....

Pssst Science questions itself all the time.

[Mojave Confederation]

Again, the simple answer is to not treat creationism as science and put it in the science class. Teach it in religion class, of which mandatory in public school. That way, the debate became moot because creationism is still taught in public school.

[Bluelight-R006]

Creationism encourages a culture of actively hating and refusing to listen to anyone who is educated, or works in academia. They teach children to disregard the opinions of professionals who have studied their whole lives, because what they say might contradict Creationism. Regardless of their field.

And if you don't think that has consequences beyond just being wrong about how old the Earth is, then you haven't been paying attention. There's a huge block of ignorant idiots in America that believe "liberal academics" are the enemy, and are lying to them about everything.

Creationism may encourage questioning science,...

No. It doesn’t and will never do so. Look at now, those who wants to question science on this topic will come up with evolution. Simply because there’s evidence — evidence of where our human species came from and that evolution is happening to animals today, too. Creationism has no scientific evidence, and that turns everyone down. Because it’s more logical to believe something that has evidence, rather than those who are in religions who believe their religion’s sayings.

[The Free Joy State]

Creationism may encourage questioning science, but the idea that all academics are dishonest doesn't just come from creationism. It's caused by conspiracy theorists and some news.

That is a massive lie. It absolutely does.

It has been their baby since Darwin.

It's not hard to claim pro-creationism education is anti-scientific when Christian curricula propagate this as an example evolutionary belief:
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/leavingfundamentalism/files/2012/05/hopefulmonster.jpg

There were only fish. Then one day a fish mysteriously gave birth to a frog. Then there were reptiles… Then there were mammals… Then one day a monkey gave birth to a human and… voila! The human race.

(Source)

[Tekania]

Why this a debate? Should schools impose a doctrine? These should teach them both theories. Not a science inquisition. Did you forgot the Spanish Inquisition?
Science still working on new theories, so many things are relatively new.
Oh, I forgot, it's America, you can change it by a law, so doesn't matter. You can legalize or forbid everything you want.

What do you mean "both theories"? "Creationism" is not a theory. It's a theology. For something to be a theory it has to be a description of a well-established and repeatedly predictive, observed and tested mechanism. Creationism offers no testable mechanism. It's a nothing but a presupposition by its adherents that is held together by a load of threads designed to prevent it from being subject to test for falsification. Creationism is Zetetic, not Scientific.

[Tekania]

Depends on which creationist.

Creationism is a well defined concept with textbooks and very specific beliefs. Not a random word you can apply to everyone who "believes Genesis might be accurate".

Yes, this is an important element to raise here. Because when the discussion is about "Teaching Creationism" it is definitely about the specific Creationists who reject the mechanisms of evolution outright. Mostly Young-Earth creationists as well as some Day-Age Creationists and Progressive Creationists. While there are certainly some creationist theologies which incorporate a large portions of the theories related to evolution into their creation theology (Theistic Evolution and Evolutionary Creationism), those theologies aren't the ones attempting to write their theology into science textbooks. As nothing in the science itself is counter to their theology (unlike the case of Young-Earth, Day-Age or Progressive Creationists which require that a large number of demonstrable, tested and observed mechanisms in science must be false for the sake of their theology.

So those "Creation theologies" which don't reject said scientific mechanisms for the sake of their theology are moot as far as this discussion goes, because they are not attempting to teach their creation theology in science classrooms.

[Alvecia]

Creationism may encourage questioning science....

Pssst Science questions itself all the time.

That's kind of it's primary function.

[North German Realm]

Creationism may encourage questioning science....

Pssst Science questions itself all the time.

Science doesn't question itself. Scientists question Scientific theories and principles based on new findings in the subject, et cetera. Creationism questions the very validity of Science based on nothing more than "That's not what THIS BOOK says!" Not really the same.

[Alvecia]

Pssst Science questions itself all the time.

Science doesn't question itself. Scientists question Scientific theories and principles based on new findings in the subject, et cetera. Creationism questions the very validity of Science based on nothing more than "That's not what THIS BOOK says!" Not really the same.

Eh, semantics.
Science, the methodology, questions science, the colloquial body of knowledge, all the time.

[Jolthig]

Creationism encourages a culture of actively hating and refusing to listen to anyone who is educated, or works in academia. They teach children to disregard the opinions of professionals who have studied their whole lives, because what they say might contradict Creationism. Regardless of their field.

And if you don't think that has consequences beyond just being wrong about how old the Earth is, then you haven't been paying attention. There's a huge block of ignorant idiots in America that believe "liberal academics" are the enemy, and are lying to them about everything.

Creationism may encourage questioning science, but the idea that all academics are dishonest doesn't just come from creationism. It's caused by conspiracy theorists and some news.

Several articles you cited from creation.com say otherwise. While it may not directly say all academics are bad, it does say most are.

[Myrensis]

Science doesn't question itself. Scientists question Scientific theories and principles based on new findings in the subject, et cetera. Creationism questions the very validity of Science based on nothing more than "That's not what THIS BOOK says!" Not really the same.

Eh, semantics.
Science, the methodology, questions science, the colloquial body of knowledge, all the time.

Science questions itself on a scientific basis, for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge and finding better answers. Creationism functions on the assumption that a 2000 year old book of fables all ready contains all the answers, and anything that appears to contradict that should be dismissed out of hand as a Satanic deception.

Not really the same thing.

[North German Realm]

Science doesn't question itself. Scientists question Scientific theories and principles based on new findings in the subject, et cetera. Creationism questions the very validity of Science based on nothing more than "That's not what THIS BOOK says!" Not really the same.

Eh, semantics.
Science, the methodology, questions science, the colloquial body of knowledge, all the time.

Not really. Scientists debate scientific theories (or dismiss them) based on scientific criteria. Creationism dismisses any form of scientific advancement ever since the 1800s out of hand, simply based on "This book from the Bronze Age says differently".

[Alvecia]

Eh, semantics.
Science, the methodology, questions science, the colloquial body of knowledge, all the time.

Science questions itself on a scientific basis, for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge and finding better answers. Creationism functions on the assumption that a 2000 year old book of fables all ready contains all the answers, and anything that appears to contradict that should be dismissed out of hand as a Satanic deception.

Not really the same thing.

I'm not arguing creationism is at all the same thing as science, I was pushing back on the assertion that science doesn't question itself.

Eh, semantics.
Science, the methodology, questions science, the colloquial body of knowledge, all the time.

Not really. Scientists debate scientific theories (or dismiss them) based on scientific criteria. Creationism dismisses any form of scientific advancement ever since the 1800s out of hand, simply based on "This book from the Bronze Age says differently".

See above

[Rojava Free State]

Science questions itself all the time and that's a good thing, because we don't know everything and we have been wrong.

That being said, creationism comes from a time we were very wrong about basically everything. We should never allow the pollution of intelligent design poison the minds of school children again and the way we do that is by actually teaching science and not teaching something as real as the chronicles of narnia.

[Petrolheadia]

It is that bad, not to me, though. You can’t tell anyone Creationism is not that bad without getting a negative response. Creationism has been known to be a stupid and illogical idea that simply cuts corners on where we came from, and denies all forms of scientific evidence.

It definitely isn't scientific, but it's just a belief that doesn't harm anyone.

Then why accept this bullshit?

[Free Arabian Nation]

Does this thread really need 37 pages? I get that there are a lot of fundies on NS, but still. You'd think it be three pages of "Fundies bad" and "Atheist Bad" before both sides get bored and leave.

[Farnhamia]

Does this thread really need 37 pages? I get that there are a lot of fundies on NS, but still. You'd think it be three pages of "Fundies bad" and "Atheist Bad" before both sides get bored and leave.

You've been here over a year and you're asking this, ensuring that the thread goes to 38 pages, at least. If you think the thread is silly, ignore it. It will go away faster.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Five people want to teach only creationism.

[The Free Joy State]

Five people want to teach only creationism.

5%. 11 people.

I bet just five people seems pretty good now.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Five people want to teach only creationism.

5%. 11 people.

I bet just five people seems pretty good now.

Thanks for pointing that out. I must have somehow misread the screen.

[Salandriagado]

Ah, so you have absolutely no idea what science is, good to know. I'll give you a hint: it isn't a list of facts. Claiming unfalsifiable beliefs to be true is an outright direct denial of science.

Ah, so religion is stupid. Okay.

No, it (or at least, any religion that makes claims about the world: religions that are just the philosophical/moral teachings are fine) just inherently not scientific.

[Salandriagado]

Ah, so you have absolutely no idea what science is, good to know. I'll give you a hint: it isn't a list of facts. Claiming unfalsifiable beliefs to be true is an outright direct denial of science.

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science.

Do not make me laugh, Theistic evolution is only adding to science, not denying.

Again, no: it's making claims about the world not learned through experiments or observations. That makes it anti-science.

[Ifreann]

Does this thread really need 37 pages? I get that there are a lot of fundies on NS, but still. You'd think it be three pages of "Fundies bad" and "Atheist Bad" before both sides get bored and leave.

You should have been here back in the day, we'd have 50 page threads on this kind of shit every other day.

[Salandriagado]

Why this a debate? Should schools impose a doctrine? These should teach them both theories. Not a science inquisition. Did you forgot the Spanish Inquisition?
Science still working on new theories, so many things are relatively new.
Oh, I forgot, it's America, you can change it by a law, so doesn't matter. You can legalize or forbid everything you want.

There is only one theory here. Creatoinism is simply incorrect.

[Farnhamia]

Does this thread really need 37 pages? I get that there are a lot of fundies on NS, but still. You'd think it be three pages of "Fundies bad" and "Atheist Bad" before both sides get bored and leave.

You should have been here back in the day, we'd have 50 page threads on this kind of shit every other day.

Unless it was a Sunday, because Father Shaughnessy made us go to church in the morning.