should creationism be taught in schools?

Thanks AdminPD! This is perhaps the most difficult forum I've every had to navigate and the discussions are scattered far and wide. It's going to take me a few days to figure this out. Thanks for the links. I proposed a new topic here, I think that's what I did anyway. LOL! So far, I haven't read a post from anyone who shares my approach to this debate.

Evolution is a theory, meaning that it is not a proven fact. Creationism is not a proven scientific fact either but has not been proven false, so since evolution has not been proven true and creationism has not been proven false, I think it should be taught in order for children to learn every aspect of the origin to life.

I realize you're probably just a one shot poster but: which version of creationism? Norse? Aztec? Hindu?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Welcome to EvC GODISTRUTH! Sure, we could teach all forms of creationism. Hindu creationism with its 491 billion year old universe, the 500 different stories of creationism according to the 500 tribes in the New World. But why stop there, we could teach all 10,000 versions of creation from the 10,000 tribes that inhabited the earth as recently as New Testament times.Wonder when they would have time to teach the 3 R's?

A long term and locally powerful associate of mine has reopened an old but pertinent topic.See Evolution as Fact and Theory.Moose

Hi, Godistruth! Welcome aboard! That's er... , debateable. But if I may ask, which creation story is it that hasn't "been proven false?" The Cherokee one with Water Beetle bringing up mud from below the Lake? The Norse one where our mountains are Ymir's bones? The Hawaiian one with Maui? Or a different one, like the Jewish or Muslim ones? How do we decide which one schoolkids get, or would it be different in Talequah, Oklahoma, Kilauea, Hawaii, and Dunseith, North Dakota?

Dammit, Doc and Anglagard! We've been at this too long!

If creos are going to keep kafuddling the difference between a scientific theory and something-I-just-pulled-out-of-my-ass-and-called-a-theory, maybe it`s high time science found an alternate title. Hmmm, that will probably lead to creos saying 'Hey, they knew it was faulty, so they changed the name'. Keep the dictionary handy, lads.

I'm afraid that someone has been lying to you. That is not what theory means.Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. --- US National Academy of Sciences"Theory" means a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts. --- National Center for Science Education, USAScientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth's development over its 4.5 billion-year history and of life's gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory. --- American Geophysical UnionA theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. --- American Intitute of Biological ScienceEvolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. --- The Paleontological Society You're not kidding. Nor is it a scientific theory. It's a falsified hypothesis. This is like saying we should teach 'em that the stork brings babies in sex education classes so that they learn "every aspect of human reproduction".

By the teaching of creationism , do you mean taught as a direct counter to the ToE ? and in science lessons ? and how would the issue that creationism does not follow standard scientific methods of tests/ proofs/ evidence and that its does not stand up to normal scientific peer testing , in short its not scientific . thus it would always look out of place and context in a science lesson .Further , is not creationism already taught in schools in the religious studies lessons ? ?and if you are putting up creationism against evolution should not religious studies lessons also teach evolution as a alternative to any creation part of any religion being looked at ?? and thus be used as a teaching tool to show how religions are false ( if they are ) ?

Yes, creationism should be taught in public schools. Evolution isn't a fact, although it has lots of evidence supporting it. However, creationism also has lots of evidence. I think that schools should teach both, but neither as indisputable fact, but rather ideas that the majority (if not all) of the world believes in. Then, they should let the children make their own choice, instead of forcing one single belief on them. Then, if they want, they can take advanced classes in either evolution or creationism, or both, if they wanted. That way the kids could make their own choice.

Creationism in general is the same idea, Intelligent Design. I think that ID should be taught in schools.

I hope that - unlike the last creationist to make that claim that you'll actually start topics to discuss some of that alleged evidence.I do hope that you agree that if it the evidence tuned out not to support creationism that it should not be taught in schools.

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. --- The Paleontological Society"I think this is wrong. Sure, it's a scientific theory, but it isn't a fact. It isn't a fact until it is set in stone. When people start seeing things change here, right before them, then I'll agree that it's a fact. Sure, micro evolution happens, but I can't think of a single example of macro evolution. Once we see the California Condor, the Spotted Owl, the Blue Whale, or the Bald Eagle evolve into something that can withstand the pressures that humans are putting on them, then yes, I'll agree with evolution as a fact. However, because we don't, I'll accept it as a theory (a hotly debated theory).---Aquilegia753

Okay, I will. Thanks for suggesting it.