Creationism in Schools

The 1st Amendment does not allow the government to promote any particular religion. Given that you are unable to provide a coherent theory of creationism, it isn't science, but religion and therefore inappropriate for public school science classrooms. If you disagree, I would suggest you respond to Gene in the thread that concerns your theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--YEC basically, teach that the evidence doesn't allways point towards an old earth. To teach the Creation (as obviously there are many religions with different creation accounts) or ID would rather be more of the Teachers decision most likely. Teach anything that is scientific.

---

Because the evidence does always point to an old Earth. You might want to complain about this over in the appropriate thread, but there are no serious scientists who believe such a thing.

quote:

---

"There is no cohesive Creation "science"."
--Then teach it like it is braud, ie, there are many creation accounts, etc.

---

How are creation 'accounts' relevant to science? Science classrooms are surprisingly for teaching science not comparative religion.

quote:

---

"Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of."
--Well isn't that unfortunate. I think there is one in Australia but I don't know about the others.

---

Why is it unfortunate? If it isn't science why would there be a movement?

quote:

---

"If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?"
--They don't all have to be Christian, there are muslim and buddhist creationists,

---

Budhist creationists? Could you offer some information on this movement--I am not aware of it.

quote:

---

a more specific approach I am looking for to what would be taught is that the earth could be young, and simply that it could have been created on top of that.

---

Science isn't about what could be or we would be teaching last Thursdayism as an alternative.

quote:

---

Instead of the schools trying to rip everyone's faith to shreads, with first-hand experience, it is a frequent happening, a typical product of indoctrination.

---

Teaching science treats all religions equally by ignoring their particular faith and dealing with the evidence.

Why should we be teaching comparative religion in science classrooms? It isn't about what one believes, but what science infers from the evidence. If you care to make the case that creationism is scientific we have several threads begging for a scientific theory of creation.

quote:

---

but what i do know is that i do not belive in evolution as it is being thought. i am currently taking a class in geology about evolution of the earth... but they asume for any of there throrys to work that the earth always has to function now as in tommorow and yesterday... how do we know that earth dose that?

---

Because we should see physical evidence if geological principles were different. Any process should leave physical markers unless they are covered up. This is inconsistent with Christian theology, as a side point, because Christians don't believe God would deceive.

quote:

---

bk: maybe it did... but what if it didn't? how do we know that a half life is always going at the same rate of exponential decay as it is going right now?

---

I'll briefly answer this, but it belongs in a separate thread. Feel free to start one on this. Because if decay rates did change we should see the evidence of it. Isochron methods specifically address this problem.

quote:

---

and what i was trying to say in my original post was that if you teach somethink in school that is against my religion no matter what it is even if it is evolution... it still would be disenfranchising my rights... same way if creationism were thought in school it would disenfranchise your rights

---

What right is that exactly? The only right in relation to religion is that the government will not establish a religion. This means governments will not promote a particular religion or sect. Creationism is nothing but a religious belief by conservative Protestants and therefore not to be taught by the state except in relation to comparative religion classes.Evolution is a scientific theory. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the state to not teach anything that people find contrary to their personal beliefs. Teaching science as a field isn't for the purpose of indoctrination, but education. Science education has a purpose entirely separate from promoting a particular faith and therefore your complaint is irrelevant from a Constitutional point of view and from a basic issue of fairness.If you want to claim we shouldn't teach science, you can attempt that argument, but I doubt it will be successful.

And you haven't responded to several points that explain the problems with that theory. Would you care to? Or is a theory built on false assumptions okay? Why don't you continue the issue in the thread?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkwusa:
ummm first amendment of the constitution: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or....."
it all depends on how you interpert these few words...

---

How is teaching a scientific theory establishing a religion? You have equated your personal belief and a scientific theory as having the same standing in science. This is not the case. The state has an interest in promoting science education and if it chooses, as it does, to act upon that interest there is no reason why it should have to take into account non-scientific arguments.

quote:

---

evolution is a scientific theory... so was neptunism at it's time... so was cathastrophianism...

---

Neptunism? Perhaps you can tell us what that is. If creationism was a scientific theory it would be reasonably to teach it. However, it is not a scientific theory (see other threads if you disagree) and therefore has no reason to be taught in a science classroom other than to promote particular sects of Conservative Protestants.

quote:

---

i know i know the last two were proven wrong beyond a doubth... but how do we know evolution won't be proven worng?

---

We don't. However, the likelihood is quite small. However, this is irrelevant to the current status of a theory. It is a scientific theory that has not been falsified and therefore belongs in science classrooms.

quote:

---

also... in science you don't attempt to prove anythink correct... you try to disporve somethink and untill somone dose it is accepted to be correct...

---

Relevance?

quote:

---

and oh yeah could you refer me to a article about half life's always being the same because i am realy interedted in that...

---

Here is a whole series of articles:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.htmlPlease attempt to put comments in the appropriate threads or post new topics. Moose just brought up a thread relevant to this.