Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

How many times must you repeat your same argument before you just give up?
I would have considered myself a Jesus Freak at the beginning of this school year (currently questioning my beliefs). If evolution was in anyway pushed into my face as the only truth, there would have been some arguments.Science doesn't deal with the supernatural, which is what religion is. If I wanted to learn about Creationism, I could take a religious education class. Let's not waste precious time in biology classes learning about a subject that isn't even science!
How you can you exactly half teach it in schools? News flash here... seperation of church and state. It's illegal to teach about creation in school.
"Why can't a belief believed for centuries by many cultures be half-taught in schools?" -Science? No.. this would be history now. If people want to learn this stuff, I'm all for supporting the establishment of classes to learn it, as long as it is clear that in no way is it a SCIENCE course.

What "guess" has been dead wrong?

I think origins ought to be taught as a cultural class.But I think there is a place in biology for discussing and examining controversies and criticisms. Creationist criticisms and claims can be examined, and kids can learn a lot. And it makes the subject livelier...

Hi, Tamara, and welcome!

Yea welcome aboard.Somewhere there is a whole thread saying how much fun it would be if there was time to really examine creationism in school classes.Rumage, rumage, ah here is one of them:http://EvC Forum: What if creationism did get into the science class -->EvC Forum: What if creationism did get into the science classthat will dump you into the middle of it.

Thanks guys! Glad I found this place.
Looking over a bit of the thread... it's not so much that creationism ought to be taught... it's that criticisms coming from all sorts of quarters -- YECs, old earthers, interested bystanders like Milton or Macbeth, or non-mainstream scientists -- ought to be considered.
Kids need to learn that science is not the truth, and they need to be able to evaluate its claims and weigh criticisms leveled against current theories.Whether biology teachers can handle it, well, that's a whole other topic... But what's the deal with Wells claiming that the ACLU went after a teacher who was using scientific articles in the classroom critical of evolution?

Well, I think a lot more people would be on board if it weren't for the creationists.Kids need to know the thin parts in the Theory of Evolution, not because they suggest that the theory is bogus, but because they suggest promising areas of research. Nobody's gonna want to be a biologist if they think the field is all wrapped up.But in addition to the people who think we should "teach the controversy", there's people who think we should throw out the ToE and teach kids religion instead. There's no reasoning with that position, and it puts pro-science supporters on the defensive - they're not keen to do anything that makes the theory look "weak" under that circumstance, because it looks like a concession.By all means, teach the stuff that evolution doesn't fully have a good explanation for. Teach the stuff physics doesn't have a good explanation for, and chemistry and mathematics, too. Let's teach all the stuff that we don't know about. But let's make it clear that, just like we don't throw out all of mathematics because nobody's solved the "P = NP" problem, thin parts in the ToE aren't contradictions.Kids need to stop thinking that science is something they consume - a one-way stream of knowledge from books into their heads. Let's teach the controversy everywhere. (Though given that about half of a students time is spent taking standardized tests, who the hell knows where they're going to find the time for it?)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-07-2004]

I wouldn't call Milton an "interested bystander" - "anti-science nuttter" would be a better description. My impression is that MacBeth was also firmly anti-evolution, rather than just a "bystander".I'm not sure of the details of Wells' claim - and Wells is an untrustworthy source - but I am sure that if the ACLU were involved they had a good reason. Perhaps the teacher was selectively using and misrepresenting advanced material to give a false impression of current science. It should be noted that the Discovery Institute has misrepresented scientific articles to claim that they support ID - that may be related.

I agree, crashfrog. Teach science differently across the board... Worry less about "concessions" and more about the integrity of science.As for teaching religion, well, as I said, I think there ought to be a cultural class dealing with origins. It should have myths and religion in it, and poetry and stories, incl. science fiction, and art, etc. I mean, the speculation about our origins is not "owned" by science. It belongs to all of us, and has been going on as long as humans have been around. That way, perhaps the pressure on the biology classes to include stuff that clearly does not belong there would lessen.

Oh and one more thing... whether someone is an anti-science nutter or not, they can still make valid points. Let's not stoop to poisoning the well.

Let me remind you that you brought up Milton's attitude by painting him as an "interested bystander" Milton has a very definite axe to grind against mainstream science. If it is right to suggest that Milton is unbiased then it is also right to point out that such a suggestion is false.Milton has been discussed here recently.You might find the criticisms of two of his web essays I presented in this thread informative Milton & Selection

Where is it implied that interested bystanders are unbiased?I will check out your links -- thanks.

The word "bystander" implies someone who is not involved. Anyone who is as dedicated to attacking evolution as Milton is, is no bystander in the debate.

I do agree that Creationism can be taught as a religion course, but not under science. Creationism isn't a scientific theory, regardless of how much those Creationists want it to be, since it doesn't have any explained mechanisms, and no one that I know of has written an actual scientific report on Creationism and has had it subject to peer review. And people still need to get it through their heads that evolution does not explain the origin of life. I repeat: evolution does NOT explain the origin of life. It describes the history of life and its variation.

Hi Stephen,Of course schools are worse than apprenticeships for learning. That's why graduate school (as well as research mentoring of undergrads) in the sciences is set up mainly as an apprenticeship in a very family-like setting. And just like a family, there is sadness when the kids (students) fly the nest (graduate with a degree and move on). And just like a family, there is opportunity for love and hate, support and abuse.You have identified the very problem I suggest needs to be solved: the method whereby science is taught. I merely suggest that science should be taught in the same way science is done, and the way apprentices learn their trade--by doing, not just sponging and regurgitating.Many (not all) creationists (especially Intelligent Designists like Behe) propose that scientific investigation can prove their hypotheses. All evolutionists say so too. Why not bring these (and other) hypotheses into the classroom and let the students themselves learn--in practice--how to use the scientific method to come to their own conclusions.The role of the teacher in this inquiry-centered approach is to ask questions and spark curiosity, not rant dogma.As you imply, students these days, particularly in traditional science courses, are not guided or even allowed to think for themselves. So they generally don't know how, and as a result often have very warped views about what science is and is not, what science can and cannot do.Here's my challenge to you: if you believe that creation or intelligent design is supported by material data that can be collected and analyzed, then (1) what is the theory and what are some testable hypotheses derived from that theory? (2) what are the predictions about collectable data from this theory? (3) what data have you collected that is not only consistent with this theory, but inconsistent with other theories, particularly evolutionary theory?