should creationism be taught in schools?

i'm in a competition where i have to work on a debate entitled "should creationism be taught in schools", and i was wondering if anyone has any good points that they could add. i need both sides of the argument.

Considering this is the Creation versus Evolution forum, I'm willing to bet there are tons of excellent points on both sides of the argument to be found by searching. I imagine the Education and Creation/Evolution forum would be an excellent place to start.FYI: If you're talking about state and federal funded public schools the answer is clearly NO.This message has been edited by dsv, Friday, April 22, 2005 06:20 PM

I say yes. If you asked me this question a last month, I would have said no. However, I now believe that if people are dumb enough to buy into creationism, they deserve live out their lives in their fantasy world. I stopped caring. It's like the seatbelt law. If people are dumb enough to drive without a seatbelt, it's always good for the gene pool to have these people removed through natural selection.This message has been edited by Troy, 04-23-2005 12:47 AM

no.actually, that is to say yes in a manner of speaking. i think it should be taught as part of a "bullshit detector installation" program. they should teach it in basic science classes as an example of what is not science, and why.edit: also, welcome to evc.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-23-2005 02:05 AM

---

אָרַח

Seeing how important this issue is politically, people cannot really escape from the creationism/evolution "debate", so kids should be exposed to it in school. I think it should be part of the biology curriculum, to show why creationism fails as science, why the theory of evolution works, and, most importantly, why the "arguments" for creationism are almost all based on misunderstandings of basic science and what the theory of evolution actually is.

Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.Yes, I'm letting this topic get away with bypassing the Proposed New Topics procedure.To whitlee: Normal procedure is for all topics having to do with the main forum areas of creation/evolution to have to be introduced via the "Proposed New Topics" forum, where they get a quality control check before being released to a discussion forum. As such, this topic should never have been in the "Coffee House" forum. I do, however, recognize that it is tough for new members to know the procedures. Thus I resisted the urge to close the topic when it first appeared.To all: Just because this topic has been permitted to "bend the rules", doesn't mean that we want such happening as part of the normal routine.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2005 11:51 AM

Teaching evolution in the context of scienceWhat if creationism did get into the science class - Topic closed Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson PlanAdminnemooseus

teach creationism in a biology class? why let a bunch of scientific illiterates decide what gets taught in biology class? Instead of teaching religion in biology class, a better solution would be for rationality to be taught in religious studies classes. That way the science teachers don't have to waste their time pandering to the idiosyncracies of religious nutcases. And kids might actually learn something useful in RS. They would learn that they can choose to believe whatever they wish regarding religion, but that their personal beliefs have absolutely no place whatsoever in any other part of the curriculum because their beliefs are irrational and irrelevant to serious study in science and the humanities.If you go down the road of teaching creationism in biology, then we'll have to have it in physics and geography as well, and soon enough it will be in history class - american civilization is great because God made it so... At this point I'll start to agree with Troy...

Yes, but only in a philosophy or comparative-religion class. Present it as a theological view, and in no way should it be introduced as a valid scientific theory. Just my myopic opinion.

---

"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas AdamsI wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor. Orson Scott Card

Love the avatar!

ditto.edit, and even more completely off topic: does your name derive from the book "ender's game" by osc? if we ever get into a debate, i'll have to change my name to "locke" just for kicks.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-24-2005 04:12 AM

---

אָרַח

Yeah, you caught me; I am guilty of being an OSC fan. I liked Valerie’s character and though her alias would be an appropriate name for a debate forum. I thought about using Douglas Adam’s characters Majikthise or Vroomfondel from hitchhikers guide, but decided on this one.

---

"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas AdamsI wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor. Orson Scott Card

not Snotty Bartfast? To answer the question:There is a clear overwhelming judicial precedent that the teaching of creationism is a definite presentation of one religious view and as such is inappropriate for a science class, as it violates the freedom of believers in {any\every} other {faith\belief\philosophy} including (but not limited to) LOTRism, apathyism, scientology, deadheadism, and boredism.There is no such {precedent\injunction} against teaching it in a comparative religion class where other theistic concepts on the beginning of {life, the universe and everything} (to continue the hitchhiker motif) can be given equal billing. This was actually tried in California, until FUNDIE¹ parents objected to their children being taught about heathen beliefs on a equal basis.I can also see a legitimate high school class on "Is it science?" where the particular failings of various concepts (creationism, Idism, velikovski-ism, etc) can be discussed and measured against the practice of science as a way of teaching kids the basics of what science really is and how it operates. But I don't think FUNDIEs would be happy with that either.Enjoy.

---

¹- FUNDIE: Fundamentalists Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Being in high school not long ago, I know for a fact that high school students have absolutely no clue what the scientific method really is, even the honors and AP students.

excellent point. perhaps the course should be in middle school as an introduction to science.