I don't believe in evolution(Macroevolution, not micro, that happens.), so if they're going to teach about Darwin's Theory of evolution, they might as well teach creationism more too.
I don't really mind learning about it in school as long as they don't push it on me and say that it is THE correct belief. I've heard of some schools teaching it like that and i am against that.
PS Darwin studied theology and he was "Christian" but with evolution, that basically denounces God and Creation. Many scientists(like how Light Knight mentioned earlier)believe that Darwin's theory is completely incorrect and void of evidence. Darwin's theory also shows signs of racism and sexism, as in his theory(I believe it was in his Origin of Species), it claims that Africans and women are "not as developed and evolved as white men". I am extremely against this.

bignatealpha : Yeah I would've never thought that there was a user named PS... now he's gonna be all confused and probably doesn't even want to join in on this discussion lol

I only think that would be ok as long as creationism is also taught.

The reason were so dumb as a society is because were not taught to be controversial and take a stand for what we believe in anymore. Were encouraged to just take a back seat and dumb it down for everyone else. This is most evident in schools now. It started with cliff notes for Shakespeare and progressed rapidly to censoring literature or altering it completely to fit in with a more "sensitive" generation of kids. The theory of evolution is a useful tool to give people a stepping stone in the possible research of our existence. By continuously deleting our history and discovery as humans we water down what education we are even able to give. I dont agree with his evolution theory because if it were true then why dont monkeys and such just start hopping out of trees and going to work. However I dont agree with spontaneous generation either. We didnt just poof and appear no matter how much one wishes to believe that notion!

Carpool : I almost completely agree with you. What has been taught and talked about so much is being to watered down just so that no feels bad or gets offended. It is a tragedy really.

Yeah back in my day second place was the first loser. Now everyone gets a trophy! YAY!

Hmm,I have never thought of it that way. Rather interesting perspective.

We just began this subject in Biology this week. Its really in interesting even though I am a full fledged Christian. It really is quite a plausible theory when you dig into it. An example would be how we as a people have become taller over ages of time. Evolution is nothing more than genetic mutations over a long period of time, and that is totally believable in my view...

I think it should. I am a Christian myself (a real one, not just Easter- Christmas), and I don't have a problem with it. There is a part in the Constitution talking about "Separation from Church and State", which applies here. People may not like it if we teach evolution, but they will not like it if we teach them that a Celestial being from any religion reached down from the heavens one day into the darkness and created the world. If the principles of evolution taught in school really tick anyone off, such as in Catholic Schools, they could have an optional course for that unit teaching their other beliefs that yields the same amount of credits. Parents just have to request for that course and Bingo! Everyone is happy.

GoogleMe16 : Yes, but Darwin's theory went deeper than that. What you're talking about is micro-evolution, something viewed as a strongly supported theory and what I consider to be as good as scientific law. What schools teach is macro-evolution, a hypothesis Darwin himself admitted had many flaws. That they cover it is not bad, it's even covered by my Christian science curriculum. The bad part is the presentation: schools tend to present it as fact. It's not. Therefore, they simply need to change their teaching style... and we're all good.

The issue over and again is that because adaptation/mutation is literally observable (see experiments with fruit flies etc) and that those traits expressed are genetically explainable, the conclusion is difficult to evade. What exactly prevents such genetic alteration over generations for humans? So we have a set of theories about how transformations occur in a genome over generations (at the very least), which are quite difficult to ignore.

Darwin dodged the question over and again and wrote about his very own concerns about the implications of his observations.

Yet to dismiss those implications, if accepting the mechanism, is like accepting the component mechanisms used when measuring red shift to measure astronomical distance. (I shorthand it because there are several steps, though it's obviously rare to hear popular controversy over the teaching of Hubble's Law) Personally I would expect the implications of those observations made by the Hubble telescope (etc) to be more contentious publicly. If evolution is questioned on theological grounds or, differently, that it appears to be open to ideas like "irreducible complexity" then it seems less straightforward to challenge observations of gamma bursts shown to be 13 billion light-years away. (from last year, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8022917.stm) Its fair to believe that the Earth is 4 billion years old and believe in the Creation, but to accept the 13 billion year measurement actually entails an acceptance that the universe is expanding etc...

The point obviously is that if you accept scientific results and the explanations/mechanisms yielded in those results, it is difficult not to accept the consequences without being disingenuous. I went to the cosmological example because it is, to my mind, a more challenging theory to deal with if you interpret the Bible literally. But of course without Biblical literalism much of the debate changes. How life began on Earth according to any naturalism is actually still speculation, and it is this point that many evolutionary biologists easily concede (not all are like Richard Dawkins). "Evolution" isn't actually a theory of the origins of life itself, just a theory of genetic transformation. If human beings evolved, it doesn't discount the Earth/The Universe from being created by God, which is why the debate is often misleading. So for creationists either what is at stake is the general threat posed to religious doctrine (to which I point to the cosmological issue unproblematically taught to all students of astronomy) or it is the issue as to whether human beings are an exception to the evolutionary rule or not. In either case, creationism isn't falsifiable (yes, evolution is falsifiable), hence not a theory at all. Evolution is really taught because biology class is for teaching biological science (i.e. theories, all of which are indeed falsifiable).

Now, on the other hand I'd be rather interested if there was a general lobby for adding religious studies classes to public school curriculum. But I think the "separation of church and state" folks would raise that as a battle cry as if it applied and more religious folks would be concerned that the "right" interpretations of sacred texts were taught...(though I still think it'd be a good idea for children to learn what other religions practiced in the US actually teach...)

I feel that others should have the opportunity to learn and choose their religion based on their own personal feelings. Evolution is going to be taught for the purpose of scientific explanation for educational purposes, it is still in the minds of the students to decide if they wish to believe it or not.

I absolutely thank it should be taught, but emphasis should be put on the fact that it is a "theory."

I don't think creationism should be taught in school, because I'm sure teachers would only focus on the Christian creation story, and give little or no time to the ideas of anyone else. And there is such a thing as "separation of church and state," which I think would need to be exercised in a case like this.

I would agree to teaching the creation story, however, if it were in a Theology or Mythology course. (Not saying creationism is a myth, but when I took a mythology course in high school we read the Christian creation story as part of our course materials.)

how is creationism verifiable??? Is evolution any less verifiable? In fact is is MORE verifiable. and intelligent design is just religion repackaged to poison impressionable children. the constitution says to separate church and state and we fail ourselves if we let them come together. The founding fathers were Deists. Look it up, x-tians.

No it shouldn't,but it is.I think that schools have no right to tell us how humans came into being,like everything evolves some way but man did not come from monkey!

matthew30903 : Not another one! Humans did not come from monkeys! We came from upright primates who had the fortune of later evolving language and a larger brain. humans and monkeys split from the same source. Monkeys continued to evolve to become what they are today and today's man beat out other sapiens to become what we are today.

Bobbynibbles : About the founding fathers being deists... Some yes, others no. Patrick Henry for instance was actually rather religious. So they weren't all like Jefferson. It is no wonder those that insist on the religiosity of the founders would prefer to overlook, say, the Jefferson Bible as a product of a "founding father" (from Wikipedia: "The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus's birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from the Jefferson Bible.").

Not many though were Biblical literalists (and I qualify it only because I don't actually think the category of "founding fathers" refers to a unanimously determined group of people. But certainly the usual suspects like Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson weren't).

evolution is the most scientific theory so yes i think it should be taught its not like the theory is any less then the theory of god and its not like its trying to make you not believe in god its just a theory

I still think an equal amount or creationism should be taught as well.