There are, however, many different theories of creation. The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.
If creation is to be taught in the education system, whose version of creation should be taught
Right, so you have to go with a diluted-down vague non-descript version of creation like Intelligent Design.
If there was a basis in empirical observation for Intelligent Design, then it could be an acceptable part of a science course.
If you teach one version of creation over a different version of creation, is this not racist?
No, because it doesn't have anything to do with race. Perhaps, "biased" or mayby "bigoted" would be a better word.
Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?
THis becomes irrelevant if you're not going to teach specific creation stories.
Please give me a diluted down, vague, non-descript version of Intelligent Design that I can use when teaching my high school biology classes.
I didn't make it up, but here you go:
quote:The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
If we could find empirical evidence that suggests that, say, some biological function had to have emerged via a diliberate and guided process, then we could teach about that evidence in a biology class.
Do you see how weak your statement is. On one hand, we have biology that has all this empirical evident to support the theory of evolution and your statement that says "Someone just decided to make everything one day."
Not exactly, but whatever, its beside the point. Your delimma is solved by using a non-descript version of creationism like ID. The next problem is finding the empirical evidence for it.
Do you think that people like Taz would be okay with your idea of what creation is? I get the impression that Taz likes all the values and stories associated with the creation mythos. Is he okay with giving all that up?
Maybe, I dunno. Depends on how much he has to follow the Bible versus how much he wants to follow empirical evidence.
By the way, have you ever heard of roleplaying? Taz isn't being serious.
Let us say that I use a "ID" as a explanation for creationism. Am I not substituting a make believe myth for a whole bunch of ethnic one?
What ever way you look at it, you are dismissing the cultural beliefs of all the different ethnic groups that espouse them.
I think I'm following you...
You're saying that if you decide to teach creationism, then picking one particular version and only teaching that is prejudiced. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
As I've explained, one solution to that dilemma is to teach an overarching all-inclusive creationism like ID. But, again: BUT, we would have to have empirical evidence of ID to include it in a science curriculum. Now, if we did have that evidence, then there wouldn't be any problems teaching ID in a science class. You wouldn't be dismissing any cultural belief anymore than the current teaching of evolution does.
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas