Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

atheism is retarded. why, i saw god under my bed just yesterday!

I think students should be taugt about all major ideas and belief systems, if you cut out one set of ideas on, say, how the universe and life came to be, and only teach say Darwinian evolution and such as being truth, isn't it the same as censorship? Students should be taught opposing arguments, otherwise we'll raise a generation of people who don't htink for themselves and accept whatever idea get's shoved down tgheir throats first which is what that is. It's no different in theory or practice from what the Amish do.

quote:

---

I think students should be taugt about all major ideas and belief systems, if you cut out one set of ideas on, say, how the universe and life came to be, and only teach say Darwinian evolution and such as being truth, isn't it the same as censorship?

---

I agree, the schools should teach the equivalent beliefs of Fundamentalist Christianity, mainstream Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Bhuddism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Velikovsky Catastrophism, Wicca, Athiesm, all indigineous tribal creation stories (500 tribes in the New World alone), Classical Mythology, Scientology, UFOism, crystal healing, Astrology, Animism, Voodoo, Raelianism, and Satanism. To avoid favoritism, each one should be given exact equal time as anything less would be censorship.But not in science class because none of the above are science.

ok, I see your point, I should have been more clear. What I mean is, Social Studies, Higher level English classes, History, etc., should expose students to the teachings of all these major belief systems. Teach what you want in science, but allow schools to teach other ideas, and if anything a student or teacher feels should be brought up or discussed that would normally be missed, then have at it. I have an English teacher who gives mostly equal credibility and regard to most all belief systems and ideas on life, and he remains neutral on those matters, but let's us decide for ourselves what we think rather than telling us that "This is how you should believe, and how you should live and that's it." I like that and I think that's how it should be.

Children are taught about the major religions of the world in social studies classes. They don't get into detail about creation myths of the major religions b/c there are too many other important things to teach about other cultures in the 180 days of instruction time we are given. Well, with testing now, our days of real instruction are down to about 2!!!Anyway, as a biology teacher, I teach about science as a method and that method is based on evidence. You can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make your belief logical, correct or morally right or wrong. Our society is one that likes to spout out opinion as if it were fact regardless of or in ignorance of the evidence. By teaching students that there is actual historical merit to one creation story or the other regardless of the evidence is a practice in intellectual dishonesty. Even when people say that students should be exposed to all possibilities, these people are merely trying to sound "fair" in order to get what they want taught into public schools. In order to truly be fair, the arguments against religious creation stories should be presented as well.For example, the "sage", Vet, of our biology group had a student who constantly bemoaned evolution and natural selection throughout every lesson Vet had taught. One day, Vet told him to type up a list of his arguments against evolution. The student did and Vet wrote them on the board under an "Against" title. Vet then wrote down next to each argument the evidence against the students arguments. When looked at on the board, all I saw were great scientific points against what were actually pretty staid creationist arguments. The student's constant sniping stopped and the rest of the class said that they learned a lot from the exercise in debate.Creation stories are entertaining and give us an idea of how cultures think and why they sometimes do what they do. However, the stories in and of themselves are just opinion of how primative and developing cultures explained natural phenomena that they could not at the time. How those stories relate to what is going on now is important, but by themselves, they are just stories.By saying that students should decide everything for themselves is a dangerous statement. Do we want more people who think that their opinion is the truth? Or do we want well informed citizens who know the difference between fact and opinion?

Who's fact, your fact? What if oyur fact is wrong? I understand you know what your talking about and everything, but what if SOME of the evidence is wrong, or what if, properly translated and interpreted, one creation story is true? To say that they are all wrong without any other possibility is foolish because, unless oyu know everything there is to know, then you can never be certain. There's plenty of logical arguments for as wel las against creation (depending on the story) as wel las plenty of evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. I'm no expert but I've researched hte subject in enough depth to have some input, and from my research, it's clear that creation is certainly possible, and can and does even fit in with science, as far as the Judeo Christian point of view is concerned.
When I have more time I'll go more into depth on that topic, I'm at school right now so I can't.

quote:

---

For example, the "sage", Vet, of our biology group had a student who constantly bemoaned evolution and natural selection throughout every lesson Vet had taught. One day, Vet told him to type up a list of his arguments against evolution. The student did and Vet wrote them on the board under an "Against" title. Vet then wrote down next to each argument the evidence against the students arguments. When looked at on the board, all I saw were great scientific points against what were actually pretty staid creationist arguments. The student's constant sniping stopped and the rest of the class said that they learned a lot from the exercise in debate.

---

Great story. And, in my opinion, this is exactly why I feel that creationism does have a place in a biology class. In some science class somewhere, the difference between proper science and pseudoscience should be taught, and evolution vs. creationism is an excellent pair of contrasting examples to demonstrate the proper scientific method. The fact that it is an important current political topic would add some relevance to the topic.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

i whole-heartedly agree.however, i'm sure the subtlety of the point would be lost on many science teachers in certain areas of this country. scientists may be educated, but not all science teachers are...

---

I understand where you are coming from but in this part of the country, it seems we are still waiting for evolution to have a place in a biology class, at least so far as public school is concerned. My daughter's last science textbook in 8th grade devoted all of two sentences to evolution. Will see what happens in high school.As to the story about Vet, how would it work if the teacher and all the students in the class save one were creationists? That situation was the reality here in junior high according to my sources.Under the circumstances, I consider any teaching of creationism, in this place, at this time, dangerous and illegal since it would be taught in an atmosphere where the vast majority, including the teachers, reject most of the findings of science due to religious fanatacism.However, under the different set of circumstances you have implied, I can see the merit of your position.

Here fifty miles from Anglagard we had one of my daughter's classmates - in the top 10% of the graduating class - expressing doubt that dinosaurs ever existed at all. Her preacher had said they probably were fictional. And the teacher of the college-prep biology class said "You can read these next three chapters {on evolution} if you want, but they won't be on the test." Campbell's textbook, at that.Bizarroworld.

i think this would work nicely, teaching creationism along side evolution theory would confuse children enough trying to absorb science though so a class or chapter on the contrasts might be in order eather aat the begining or the end of the classthe downside is creationists don't want this though they want some bizaar thing, i have the feeling a contrast class would piss them off just like what happened to the teacher here in kansaswe could also bring up other failed pseudosciences like hollow earth theory, larmarkian theory (sp?), flat earthism, scientology etc
if those folks want critical thinking to be primary, they should be willing to scrutinze thier theories

First off, facts are self-evident.EXAMPLE: The grass is green. You can see that it is green. OK, a color-blind person cannot see that it is green. So, grind up the grass, put it in a spectrophotometer, and it will allow you to observe that the green wavelengths of light are transmitted. So, even a color-blind person can "see" that the grass is green!Facts are facts. Let's not confuse opinion with fact. Unlike opinions, facts cannot be A and non-A at the same time. The nice thing about science is that it is inherently self-correcting due to peer review. If there is a mistake or a hoax, it can eventually be found out. I am not sure what you mean by "properly" interpreted. Do you realize how much evidence you would need to support the validity of a creation story!?! And how would you gather this evidence, especially if you credit a creator or intelligent designer of some kind!?! How could this supernatural entity do anything in our natural and material universe!?! This statement is a blatant cop-out! Can you recall any positive arguments for creation off of the top of your head? I can think of several lines of arguments against the role of a supernatural being creating the universe. If there was any credible scientific evidence against evolution, then evolution would no longer be a credible scientific theory. It's been around for almost 150 years and is constantly being affirmed and strengthened. However, as Biblical archeology moves along, more and more Old and New Testament stories are being invalidated. Creation can never fit in with science. Science deals with studying natural phenomena that can be tested and are falsifiable. Creation posits a supernatural creator. The existence of a supernatural creator cannot be tested nor is it falsifiable. There is no way to reconcile science with anything supernatural while still calling it science.

If you do not .Then you will not. Homosexuality is a cause of having not. It's just having a method so, that standards of one ear larger than the other do not become the starting point. I don't except evolutionary theories but it's better than evolving out of an intestine.

I'm afraid that your posts are somewhat incomprehensible. Please read them over (or get someone else to help you) before posting.Again, maybe reading awhile before you post more would be a good idea.

Hello, Tiger. Welcome to the boards.Please try and seperate your thoughts into text blocks, it will help us understand what you are trying to say.I get the feeling from your post that you don't have a very good grasp of the scientific method. That's unfortunate.It seems like you are suggesting that since we can't "disprove" a particular creation story (the world is built on top of an infinite stack of turtles, for example) that we should accept all of them.Well, we know a lot about turtles. We've never seen one big enough for the world to be built atop. Also, our understanding of physics, biology, astronomy, logic, etc. sorta precludes us from believing that there is infact an infinitly high stack of immortal extra-planetary turtles holding everything aloft.Can I "prove" that there isn't a stack of invisible giant immortal turtles? No. Should we teach turtle stacking in school? No. Should turtle-stack theory be given equal consideration under science? No.Is the turtle stack creation story a wild example? Of course. But, frankly no wilder than the "magic disappearing water" story, or the "flying spagetti monster is jealous of gods which do and don't exist" story.If you want to believe in turtles or magic water or whatever, more power to you, but don't pretend you also know anything about science. Mutually exclusive thought process.