Creationism in Public Schools

[Highever]

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.

The Christian creation story should not be taught as if it is just as valid as a scientific theory. Makes about as much sense as teaching a history class where the flood is considered historical fact.

[North German Realm]

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.

Sure, but we don't teach Alchemy in Chemistry, or the Flat Earth in geology. We don't teach that vaccines cause autism in biology. Because they're all flat out wrong statements. Creationism is about as far-from-truth as they are.
And sure. not everything about science makes sense. Not everyone's gonna become a scientist, the job of the teacher is to make you make sense of some of it.

[Hanafuridake]

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.

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.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Sure, but we don't teach Alchemy in Chemistry, or the Flat Earth in geology. We don't teach that vaccines cause autism in biology. Because they're all flat out wrong statements. Creationism is about as far-from-truth as they are.
And sure. not everything about science makes sense. Not everyone's gonna become a scientist, the job of the teacher is to make you make sense of some of it.

I don't know, I mean, "Alchemists attempted to purify, mature, and perfect certain materials.[2][4][5][n 1] Common aims were chrysopoeia, the transmutation of "base metals" (e.g., lead) into "noble metals" (particularly gold);[2] the creation of an elixir of immortality;[2] the creation of panaceas able to cure any disease; and the development of an alkahest, a universal solvent.[6] The perfection of the human body and soul was thought to permit or result from the alchemical magnum opus[2] and, in the Hellenistic and Western mystery tradition, the achievement of gnosis.[5] In Europe, the creation of a philosopher's stone was variously connected with all of these projects." We still do some of this, we just call it "Better living through chemistry."

[Celritannia]

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.

So, should children be taught all forms of creationism, from every religion?

While evolution might not make sense to you, it is grounded in the scientific principle and evidence.

[Realm of Coffeecakes]

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.

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.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

What use is there in polluting the biology class with Bronze Age mythology?

[Celritannia]

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.

Evolution is not a theory, it is proven fact.
Creationism has no scientific evidence.

In fact, leading psychologists have stated teaching children creationism leads them being unable to differentiate between fact and fiction:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/0 ... 07009.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

[Highever]

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.

Unless you plan on teaching every single creation myth of every religion, no. We do not need to teach myths and stories as part of science.

[Geneviev]

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.

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

[North German Realm]

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.

If anything, we should just remove religion from school cold turkey so that in a few generations, stupidities such as "creationism is a legitimate scientific theory" don't pop up ever so often.

[Realm of Coffeecakes]

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.

Exactly

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I wish to know what natural phenomena, big or small this creationism dogma explains satisfactorily.

[Geneviev]

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

Exactly

Good to know someone agrees.

[Hanafuridake]

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.

Creationism is not a scientific theory anymore than healing crystals or chakras are valid medicine. Schools exist to teach students important facts, it's not a platform for evangelists to spread misinformation and claim outright lies like the earth being 6000 years old.

[Necroghastia]

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.

Creationism isn't a theory. It can't even be called a hypothesis, as there's no way to test it.

And what "answers" would students even get from it other than "because God"?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Not really. You’re essentially pulling an ‘I don’t know, ergo God’ argument.

No I'm not.

Yes you very much are.

I stated from the beginning it was my belief. You have yours, I have mine. The difference is, I am not going out of my way to shit on yours.You can't say the same.

‘Just a theory’ followed by blatant ignorance of what a scientific theory actually is.

Verily, thine hypocrisy is showing.

Also, I never once stated it believe in "God". I said I believe there is likely a higher power.

Irrelevant. You’re still pulling the same argument.

For all we know, we are in a fucking snow globe sitting on some aliens desk. Or a laboratory experiment. I can't prove this is the case, can you prove it isn't?

I don’t need to. In the absence of evidence supporting your positive statement, we must logically hold the negation to be true.

They still don't know what caused the Big Bang.

At least we’re honest about it.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

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.

Creationism is not a theory. It barely qualifies as idle speculation.

[Tekania]

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.

"Intelligent Design" isn't a theory it does not even contain the minimal elements to even constitute vying for being a theory. It offers no mechanism that can be tested. It's a set of religiously motivated assertions which have so far continued to fail at falsifying theories of evolution.

[Estanglia]

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.

We should only be teaching things that have evidence for them.

A school shouldn't be telling people that a theory with zero evidence and a theory that has all the evidence we have backing it are in any way equal. That would be lying to the students, a worse crime than not covering evidenceless theories.

[Tekania]

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.

We should only be teaching things that have evidence for them.

A school shouldn't be telling people that a theory with zero evidence and a theory that has all the evidence we have backing it are in any way equal. That would be lying to the students, a worse crime than not covering evidenceless theories.

It's a mistake attaching "theory" to it in the first place. It gives it an air of scientific credibility that it completely lacks. Intelligent Design does not even contain the most basic elements to even be considered candidate for a theory.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

We should only be teaching things that have evidence for them.

A school shouldn't be telling people that a theory with zero evidence and a theory that has all the evidence we have backing it are in any way equal. That would be lying to the students, a worse crime than not covering evidenceless theories.

It's a mistake attaching "theory" to it in the first place. It gives it an air of scientific credibility that it completely lacks. Intelligent Design does not even contain the most basic elements to even be considered candidate for a theory.

The cdesign proponentsists intended it that way.

(cookie if you get the reference)

[Kowani]

Exactly

Good to know someone agrees.

That’s like getting approval from Richard Spencer about your paper on genetics.

[Page]

Not really. You’re essentially pulling an ‘I don’t know, ergo God’ argument.

No I'm not. I stated from the beginning it was my belief. You have yours, I have mine. The difference is, I am not going out of my way to shit on yours.You can't say the same. Also, I never once stated it believe in "God". I said I believe there is likely a higher power. For all we know, we are in a fucking snow globe sitting on some aliens desk. Or a laboratory experiment. I can't prove this is the case, can you prove it isn't? They still don't know what caused the Big Bang.

Who's to say who is right? Guess one will have to wait until they die to really know, now won't we? I am not really in in hurry to find out, but the wait IMO will be worth it.

The reason we do not know what happened to cause the Big Bang is because our understanding of the universe is based on the laws of physics, and the laws of physics of our universe did not come into existence until after the Big Bang. Electrons, protons, and neutrons did not yet exist. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force were not yet distinct phenomena. Time as we know it was not as it is now. We do not lack an explanation because there is no scientific answer, we lack an explanation because we do not have the means to investigate. That is no reason to assume there is a "higher power."

[The Alma Mater]

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.

Indeed. Design by Flying Spaghetti Monster is completely equal and deserves equal time.