Creationism in the Classroom - Research Project

Hi,

I am currently undertaking research on the educational value of creationism and what its place should be within the primary curriculum. I would be very grateful if people would will in my anonymous questionnaire at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=JtOMt_2fA2GkvW2Ov3T...

and discuss this topic which would be very benefical for my research.
If there's anything anybody wants to know about my research please don't hestitate to ask.
Thanks!

Thread copied here from the Thread Name Not Available thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Please post the survey questions here. Individuals may not have the time to take the survey but would be interested in discussing it here.

Thanks.

The questions in my survey are:

1. Define what you think is meant by creationism.

2. What educational value do you think creationism has to children?

3. Where do you think creationism should be taught in the curriculum?
Science/RE/both/Not at all.

4. How should the topic of creationism be approached?
As fact/ as a theory/ as a religious belief/ as a story/ alongside scientic theories/ as an alternative to scientific theories.

DaisyRach writes: 1. Define what you think is meant by creationism.

Any tale of either life, Earth or all of the universe being brought into existance by a supernatural means. Here in the US I would say most people would naturally think mostly of the Judaic creation story, however I would say any tale from any religion falls under creationism.

DaisyRach writes: 2. What educational value do you think creationism has to children?

I would say none, unless you are talking about religious education curriculum.

DaisyRach writes: 3. Where do you think creationism should be taught in the curriculum? Science/RE/both/Not at all.

I believe it is best placed in a social studies curriculum. Where various cultures ideas on creation can be compared and contrasted.

DaisyRach writes: 4. How should the topic of creationism be approached? As fact/ as a theory/ as a religious belief/ as a story/ alongside scientic theories/ as an alternative to scientific theories

I think that it should be taught exactly how it is, as a religious belief and that other creation ideas should be taught along with it.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

1. Define what you think is meant by creationism.

Creationism is a doctrine predicated upon the mythological beginnings of the Universe as well as life as we know it typically as a result of some divine or supernatural action. More specifically, creationism has become synonymous with the Judeo-Christian version of creation.

2. What educational value do you think creationism has to children?

In studying religions, creation stories have educational value in showing the variety of human beliefs and how each religion perceives humanity in relation to the Universe around us. Beyond the study of cultures and mythologies, creationism has little to no educational value.

3. Where do you think creationism should be taught in the curriculum? Science/RE/both/Not at all.

Creationism should be taught in Religious Education or not at all.

4. How should the topic of creationism be approached? As fact/ as a theory/ as a religious belief/ as a story/ alongside scientic theories/ as an alternative to scientific theories.

Creationism should not be taught as fact or truth, theory, nor treated in any way as scientific, but as part of the religion. Creationism should be taught as a religious story that isn't all-important to the core of a belief, but is still an aspect of that belief.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

1. Define what you think is meant by creationism.

Any non-scientific account of the creation of life, the universe and/or everything, usually by supernatural means, but not always.

2. What educational value do you think creationism has to children?

A little in an historical or cultural aspect, very little else.

3. Where do you think creationism should be taught in the curriculum?
Science/RE/both/Not at all.

Only in RE classes where many creations myths and stories are presented in as non-biased a manner as possible...time constraints willing.

4. How should the topic of creationism be approached?
As fact/ as a theory/ as a religious belief/ as a story/ alongside scientic theories/ as an alternative to scientific theories.

It should be presented exactly as it is: a religious belief based on a story. It could be noted that there are those who hold this belief above all others and will deny scientific explanations in favor of their preferred belief, and others who take a more allegorical interpretation to the story when science seems to contradict a literal interpretation. I would deifnitely not present it as a fact or a theory, since there is no evidence to support either contention, and I would not present it on an equal footing with scientific theories becaise this just increases the sense of conflict between science and religion, thus doing more harm to both than good.

Thank you!

1. Creation is Believing in a Creation by a Divine Creator, and that the world was created in six 24 hour days.

2. Creation has a lot of educational value. Evolution teaches kids that they come from animals and then we wonder why they act like animals. Creation will not hurt children, I assure you.

3. Creation is based on Biblical teachings so therefore could apply to both Science as well as others.

4. Creation should be introduced as a fact. Creation is based on the Bible, which there has never been found any errors in. Evolution, however, has been proved wrong hundreds of times and has no solid basis .Kent Hovind, for years has offered a 250,000 dollar reward for any real proof of evolution. That reward, has never been claimed. Oh, and Evolution is a religion, not a fact in science.

joshua4missions

Edited by joshua4missions, : Remembered something to add to post.

Edited by joshua4missions, : No reason given.

Evolution is a religion, not a fact in science.

No it is not. There is no mythological dogma in evolution that there is in creationism. The Bible is not fact but mythology. The order of creation in Genesis doesn't match the evidence. The basic difference between Evolution and creationism is that evolution is based on evidence while creation is based on stories told by bronze age men who knew nothing of nature.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

But I'll point out just one error, of many:

Creation is based on the Bible, which there has never been found any errors in.

You might like to believe this, but it is totally false.

The disproof of the global flood story is a classic example. It has been disproved so many times, and in so many different ways, that to believe it happened as written, or that the bible has no errors, is self-delusion at its height.

If you want, we can continue with a more in depth discussion of the flood on a more appropriate thread. The PRATT thread in "Free for All" might be suitable.

But I doubt if you are willing. You seem to be just repeating some catechism as if repeating it made it true.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Kent Hovind, for years has offered a 250,000 dollar reward for any real proof of evolution.

You'll note that Bro. Hovind is serving ten years in a federal prison for defrauding you and me, his fellow taxpayers. He never had $250,000 to award to anyone - and he was Making Shit Up the entire time that his "ministry" was outside the walls.

Oh - welcome to EvC, Joshua!!

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Kent Hovind, for years has offered a 250,000 dollar reward for any real proof of evolution. That reward, has never been claimed.

And a number of scientists have asked him to sign a legally binding contract saying that if they give him the proof, he'll give them the money. And every time they've done that, the stupid coward has run away as fast as his frightened little legs will carry him. And he is now in jail for fraud, which is where he belongs.

Hi Joshua4missions.

Hooboy.

Are you for real, or just a chain-yanker? I guess we'll find out soon enough when you're never seen here again...

Creation will not hurt children, I assure you.

If creation produces children who later become adults who refuse to accept the most reasonable explanation for a given observation, then yes, this is the most aggregious type of harm. If it results in an individual who buries his head in the sand or requires a willful suspension of disbelief when confronted with straightforward, rational, simple evidence found in nature, then yes, this is harmful. If it results in a person such as yourself, ignorant of all facts pertaining to science then yes, I can see how this can be harmful to the individual self, as well as society as a whole. Are you really this deluded? Really?

Or are you a troll? The reason I ask is because not many self-respecting creationists these days would use anything related to Mr. Hovind as ammunition backing up an argument. You've created the caricature of the über creationist: one which many attempt to pigeonhole most biblical literalist radicals as, but also one which not many get the opportunity to experience. It is also one which would be used by say, someone who is fervently anti-creation, wishing to portray creationists in as bad a light as possible. So as a result, you've effectively tripped all of my troll indicators with your claptrap. Nice work, that.

I'm looking forward to hearing more from you.

Sorry this is off topic.

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : spell

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

1. Pastafarianism is Believing in a Creation by a Divine Creator, and that Pasta is Holy.

2. Pastafarianism has a lot of educational value. Evolution teaches kids that they come from animals and then we wonder why they act like animals. Pastafarianism will not hurt children, I assure you.

3. Pastafarianism is based on Beer and Midgets so therefore could apply to both Science as well as others.

4. His Noodley Holiness should be introduced as a fact. Pastafarianism is based on the The Gospel, which there has never been found any errors in. Evolution, however, has been proved true hundreds of times and has one hell of a solid basis .Kent Hovind, is a fraud. Oh, and christianity is a religion, not a fact in science.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan