Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Rahvin writes:Hi Robert,Perhaps you aren't aware of some of the clauses in the American Constitution, being that you're Canadian.The very first Amendment to our Constitution states:

quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

---

The bold section is what we call the "establishment clause." It means that no governmental agency (local, state, or federal) can make a law that establishes a state religion. This has been interpreted by every single Supreme Court that has needed to question the issue to also include the endorsement of any religion by the state.Essentially, the government (including publicly run schools) must remain completely neutral on the matter of religion. The reason is simple: we are not a nation of a single religion, but rather a melting pot of many belief systems, and for our government to endorse one set of beliefs, everyone who believes otherwise would have their rights violated.For exactly the same reason that a schoolteacher cannot require every student in the classroom to pray to Allah, or make an animal sacrifice to the Great Spirit, or tell students that no god(s) exist, that same schoolteacher cannot say that god(s) do exist, or mention Jesus, etc. Christians don;t tend to want their tax dollars endorsing Hindu or Islam or Atheism, and neither do non-Christians typically want their tax dollars being used to endorse Christianity.Religion is a matter for families and places of worship. Schools are publicly run, and to protect the rights of all of us must remain totally neutral on the subject.The second part of the First Amendment means that, while the government is restricted from expressing religion, individuals are not in any way. Christians are completely free to pray, worship, and read the Bible whenever and wherever they please, with the sole exception of doing so in an official capacity while being paid by public funds (like, say a teacher). Likewise, I as an Atheist am totally free to disbelieve in any religion, but if I were employed at a public school, is would not be allowed to tell students that their religious beliefs are false.Do you see how this works?Christian Creationism in a public school would violate my rights and the rights of my children, because it would mean my tax dollars would be used to endorse a set of religious beliefs I do not follow, and worse, it would mean endorsing those beliefs to my children. Hindu Creationism would do the same for Christians as well as Atheists like me.To protect the religious rights of all of us, the government must remain strictly neutral and mute on the subject. That's how the freedom of religion works.

ringo writes: If the state taught that Treasure Island is true but War and Peace is fiction, that would not be neutral. If it teaches that both are fiction, that is neutral.Similarly, teaching that Genesis is fiction - i.e. it doesn't match our observations of the real world - is not a breach of neutrality.Neutrality means not treating one book differently from all of the others. That isn't really what you want, is it?

Dr Adequate writes:Implicitly, perhaps. Well, for one thing, you overlook the legal concept of secular legislative purpose. There is a good reason for at least implicitly teaching that creationism is rubbish, namely that it is. Similarly there would be a good reason for teaching that it was true if it was true, namely that it was true.Again, I invite you to imagine a sect that taught that two twos are five. Would that sect, by its existence, make it unconstitutional to teach the multiplication table?

jar writes:They are not Christian doctrines for MOST of the established Christian churches.No one has to teach that Creationism is wrong, all of the facts and evidence shows that Biblical Creationism is simply Dogma and false doctrine, lies perpetrated by the Christian Cult of ignorance.Creationism is banned from science classes because it is false, not because it is religion.Your problem is that when the facts are taught and the evidence examined the kids realize that what they had been taught based on the Bible is false. If the folk that taught them were so wrong about the stuff that is easy to check like evolution and age of the earth and that there was no Biblical flood, why would they believe any of the other stuff they were taught?

ringo writes: Again, the law excludes all religious viewpoints equally. If scientists discover that Genesis - or any other book - is untruthful, the law doesn't ban those discoveries from the classroom.

Taq writes:No, they aren't. The Bible is never mentioned in science class. No one is banning the Bible. Children are still free to attend any church they want and read any book that they want.The only ban here is on the actions of the government, not the citizen. The founders clearly stated that state and religion are to be separate. Teaching that circulating thunderstorms produce lightning touches on belief that Zeus makes lightning. Should we ban this from science class as well?

Briterican writes:It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others?I'm concerned that you seem unable to grasp the difference between evidentially-based material and faith-based material. I think it is safe to assume that you would not want your children being taught the Hindu origin myth as though it was on all-fours with the Christian origin myth. Please correct me if I am wrong.What I'd like to understand better is this: If you seriously believe that this specific origin myth (Genesis) deserves equal time in the classroom with evidentially-based material, surely you must accept that, in the spirit of fairness, the many other faith-based origin myths (which many millions of people presently adhere to) should also be included?If you work through this chain of logic, surely you can see why the Christian origin myth does NOT belong in the science classroom. Put simply, if it deserves time there, then so do multitudes of other unsupported assertions, leading to a colossal waste of time that would be better spent on the examination of tangible, evidentially supported material.

NoNukes writes:Your reasoning is off in a number of places. Here's my take on one of them.Your premise about what the object is is not correct.Science is about uncovering knowledge through application of the scientific method. It is not about uncovering truth using Ouija Boards, prayer and fasting, reading the Bible, or mystical divination even if those particular things happen to work.Even without the first amendment, reading Genesis or the Prose Edda would not be proper lines of inquiry about anything in a K-12 science class.

ringo writes: The point of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the doctrines of one sect from being placed above the doctrines of other sects - equality of religion. The application of that clause by the courts excludes all religious doctrines from public schools.Science itself tries to exclude falsehoods from the science classroom, regardless of whether those falsehoods are Christian doctrines or not.What we're talking about here is an attempt by some Christian sects to have their doctrines taught as science, excluding the opinions/doctrines of other Christian and non-Christian sects. That is what violates the Establishment Clause.