Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

The big picture includes science but is not limited by it. It includes other considerations, such as whether science covers orgins or not. Does evolution we observe mean it all started in Eden? Or does it mean it must have started somewhere else?
Much of the area is grey. A majority may want to stick to the crystal clear, observed, tested, and well known, main core of science, rather than the grey zone assumptive stuff that conflicts with their beliefs.They may want to have prayer in school, whether science thinks there was a God or not. They may want to teach the bible, whether science likes it or not. They might want to toss out most of the grey zone belief tainted aspects of the orgins related speculations some love to call science! More power to them.If I were king, I would shut down all public schools before the day was done, and open then when and if they started to reflect the will of the majority. Actually, I think it would be better if most stayed closed, and were used for something else, even homeless shelters, or food banks, or low income housing, or public offices, etc! I think svchools ought to be more like the one room schools of days gone by! More personal. Maybe this is not possible, but something a little closer to that, than the monster operations we now see.

The big picture includes science but is not limited by it. It includes other considerations, such as whether science covers orgins or not. Does evolution we observe mean it all started in Eden? Or does it mean it must have started somewhere else?
Much of the area is grey. A majority may want to stick to the crystal clear, observed, tested, and well known, main core of science, rather than the grey zone assumptive stuff that conflicts with their beliefs.They may want to have prayer in school, whether science thinks there was a God or not. They may want to teach the bible, whether science likes it or not. They might want to toss out most of the grey zone belief tainted aspects of the orgins related speculations some love to call science! More power to them.If I were king, I would shut down all public schools before the day was done, and open then when and if they started to reflect the will of the majority. Actually, I think it would be better if most stayed closed, and were used for something else, even homeless shelters, or food banks, or low income housing, or public offices, etc! I think svchools ought to be more like the one room schools of days gone by! More personal. Maybe this is not possible, but something a little closer to that, than the monster operations we now see.

The basic tenets of the faith of the majority, and such respectful observances as they may command, like prayer, are not apologetics ministries, sorry. If anything, the stories of man's past in the grey zone by educators are apologetics ministries.Edited by whisper, : No reason given.

Nope! It really is true that most people are ignorant or misinformed, especially when it comes to science. You still don't seem to understand that science doesn't vote on facts. Should we vot to make pi=3 because it's easier to remember? No, because that would just be stupid, like voting on whether or not evolution is science.

quote:

---

The basic tenets of faith are not apologetics ministries, sorry.

---

This statement is self-refuting, but I thought I would make sure everyone else notices it.-

quote:

---

If anything, the stories of man's past in the grey zone by educators are apologetics ministries.

---

Unless the "stories" are, like the theory of evolution, supported by a mind-boggling amount of good, solid evidence in a multitude of different disciplines confirmed by a wide variety of different methods. Then those "stories", like the theory of evolution, can be considered established fact. And then not only would those "stories" be allowed in the public classroom, but, like the theory of evolution, it would be a great disservice to the students not to include them in the curriculum.In fact, if the only objection to such well-confirmed "stories" were that they contradict the thoroughly debunked and juvenile creation myths of a particular religious cult, then not including them in the school curriculum could be considered a violation of religious freedom. Furthermore, if that particular cult had frightening totalitarian tendencies, it would be the duty of every person who respects liberty and democracy to make sure that these "stories" were not removed from the curriculum.

---

"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)

The 'ignorant' majority can still throw out the grey zone parts on the fringes of science if they decide to do so.
They don't have to teach that the evolving we see today means there was no Eden. They don't have to engage in over educated what if there was no Gods?Any majority in their right mind would keep people with your low opinion of them far away from their kids as well!

The 'ignorant' majority can still throw out the grey zone parts on the fringes of science if they decide to do so.
They don't have to teach that the evolving we see today means there was no Eden. They don't have to engage in over educated what if there was no Gods?Any majority in their right mind would keep people with your low opinion of them far away from their kids as well!

Ahh, thanks. Now I get where you're coming from. I'm always interested in the implications of peoples' ideas. Let me add three questions here.1. There are over 34,000 recognized Christian churches, denominations, sects, etc in the world. Slightly less than 2/3 of them have at least some representation in the United States. Most of these groups differ from each other either slightly or fundamentally in many doctrinal areas, including origins. Which group's (or collection of groups') doctrines will be the guiding principles? Does this group (or these groups) represent a majority of Christians in the US? If so, what is the legal/ethical/constitutional status of the "minority" Christian groups?2. Non-Christian groups represent some 15% (or ~40 million people) of the population in the US. Although a clear minority, if your proposal were adopted, what would their legal/ethical/constitutional status be? Would their origin stories be permitted in school, or not?3. Does your majority control of science refer to only teaching, or do you intend for it to have wider application? If the former, are you limiting majority control to secondary and below, or would you also require majority control over state-funded colleges and universities as well? If the latter, which sciences would be directly effected (i.e., which sciences would be prohibited under your system from conducting basic research, etc)? Probably a good thing none of us has that power, don't you think? Autocracies have a deservedly bad reputation historically. Oh, they're fine when you're a member of the ruling class, but everybody else gets the shaft. And whose ox is being gored can change on a whim. Edited by Quetzal, : edited kuz I kant spel

quote:

---

Which group's (or collection of groups') doctrines will be the guiding principles?

---

The bible is the supposed source for all of them. Why get into anyone's doctrines?

quote:

---

Would their origin stories be permitted in school, or not?

---

No. Would Jewish orgin stories be permitted in Bejing? Maybe in an after hours club, or private prayers, etc, out of respect, letting them believe and behave as they want, within the framework of the majority wishes.

quote:

---

are you limiting majority control to secondary and below, or would you also require majority control over state-funded colleges and universities as well?

---

No limits.

quote:

---

If the latter, which sciences would be directly effected (i.e., which sciences would be prohibited under your system from conducting basic research, etc)?

---

Are there any sciences that might be something a moral majority might not like? If so, why fund them? Is there some higher obligation there to fund anything at all?

quote:

---

This statement is self-refuting, but I thought I would make sure everyone else notices it.

---

Actually, faith is something shared by more than those who believe in God. "
1 The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2 Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system."Prayer is not a christian doctrine. A doctrine is---
"1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching."The door swings both ways. Evolution also fits the description.My point was that a majority teaching it's kids basic precepts of the faith of their fathers is not some apologetics ministry. It is more like slapping the present ministry of truth into line with it's masters.

quote:

---

Unless the "stories" are, like the theory of evolution, supported by a mind-boggling amount of good, solid evidence in a multitude of different disciplines confirmed by a wide variety of different methods.

---

No, because the support only goes as far as Eden, beyond which all evolving is a dream. A story. A story that assumes no God, or creation, and explains accordingly. And don't hand us the line that it assumes no God because it can find no God. That kind of white cane reasoning is lame as well.

quote:

---

Evolution also fits the description.

---

Which description? You have presented several definitions. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation.-

quote:

---

My point was....

---

It is becoming clear that your point is confused. By your own statement, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, yet you do not recognize this.-

quote:

---

...the support only goes as far as Eden....

---

The evidence supporting evolution has become stronger and stronger over the past century and a half, and now the fact that life has evolved cannot be disputed by educated, reasonable people. This is why the courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the public schools -- it is religious dogma; this is why the courts have ruled that the theory of evolution cannot be watered down with warnings -- to do so would be to give in to relgious dogma. It does not matter whether or not the majority accepts that creationism, Noah's flood, or Santa Claus travelling around the world bringing toys to all the good little boys and girls. The minority always retains certain rights in democracy, and in this country (the US) that has come to mean that they have the right to expect that state institutions will not present any religious dogma or tenet as fact or as an alternative to fact.

---

"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)

Hello whisper. In the course of my lurking, I have not seen you over in the science forums. Seeing how evil-ution is such a shaky, evidence lacking theory, maybe you should go and put those evil-utionists straight!

Right. It supposedly is. However, the interpretation of the Book is one of the things that has created such a plethora of different denominations, churches, sects, etc (doctrinal and ritual disagreements comprise the remainder). Why do you think your particular group's idiosyncratic interpretation would be the main one? From sheer numbers, the combined Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, mainline Presbyterian, etc, outnumber the inerrantists about 2:1. None of these churches are against evolution. If you go by majority rule, you lose. I would say, therefore, that interpretation of doctrine would be a pretty critical issue for you. So, why is yours best, or why would the other denominations accept it? Wait a sec, aren't you guys the ones who are always on about how persecuted Christians are around the world? Isn't what you're advocating here the same thing? For example, the Stalinists in the former Soviet Union had a very similar rule when the suppressed the Russian Orthodox church, if I remember correctly. How do you justify this kind of oppression in light of Christianity? So, essentially, any teaching of life sciences at any level would be limited to descriptions of things like photosynthesis and cell mechanics. Got it. Biology is reduced to butterfly-collecting. Quite a few, I would imagine. Besides biology and ecology, we have cosmology, astrophysics, cosmogyny, etc. Who knows - just about any science could be conceivably disliked by someone. I don't know about "obligation", but certainly funding basic research has had a net positive effect on human life, don't you agree? You realize of course that there was something similar in the past, don't you? Today it's called the Dark Ages, for reasons that it might be good to contemplate.Tell me something. Is this attitude unique to you, or are you a member of an organized group that maintains similar radical ideas?

quote:

---

The evidence supporting evolution has become stronger and stronger over the past century and a half, and now the fact that life has evolved cannot be disputed by educated, reasonable people.

---

Life still evolves, but it started in Eden. A little evolution doesn't mean we started before the garden. It simply is how things work. Why make silly grandiose statements?

quote:

---

This is why the courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the public schools

---

In your opinion! I guess you mean in the US, as well. Well, then, should we conclude that all knowledge lays in the US courts? If they decide otherwise, then we all change our minds?

quote:

---

It is becoming clear that your point is confused. By your own statement, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, yet you do not recognize this.

---

It is becoming clear you have no point, let alone an ability to be cohesive.

quote:

---

It does not matter whether or not the majority accepts that creationism, Noah's flood, or Santa Claus travelling around the world bringing toys to all the good little boys and girls. The minority always retains certain rights in democracy, and in this country (the US) that has come to mean that they have the right to expect that state institutions will not present any religious dogma or tenet as fact or as an alternative to fact.

---

It ought to come to mean that the minority is put in it's place, and the majority are the belle of the ball. The minority have a right to exist in the existing structure which should reflect the beliefs and will of the majority. They have no right to expect in public school namby pamby, colorless, atheistic teachings as they may prefer. Go private for that.
Respecting a minority does not mean giving them the kids, the farm, and the keys to the smart car. It means not killing them or arresting them for having their different beliefs.

quote:

---

Why do you think your particular group's idiosyncratic interpretation would be the main one?

---

I don't. But the bible simply presented and simple prayer are not some factional thing. No dividing and conquering there. Look at the apostles creed, I think even the Catholics use it. Something like 'I believe in ....one God...creator of heaven and earth...' We don't need religion in schools so much as just the basics of heritage and to fill the gaps where beliefs are needed.

quote:

---

How do you justify this kind of oppression in light of Christianity?

---

Teaching kids about the majority beliefs and heritage and birthright, and salvation is not opression. It is duty. A God given command, right, and duty. Who would deny any majority that?