I want to hear from you guys on this. Do you think Creationism should be part of the science curriculum in public schools, even though they aren't rooted in a scientific basis??Keep in mind I'm only talking about the science classroom. It's great to learn about all different religions from an objective viewpoint in social studies and the like.

Oh, also, this is an environment for cultivating intelligent?debate. If you say "science is wrong" or "religion is dumb" without any effort to provide reasoning, or if you post with the clear intention of starting a riot, the mods will be summoned.

What about parents trying to raise their kids with a creationist view of the world.  The govt. forces them to send their kids to school that then teaches things in disagreement with the parents.  I'm sure it can be confusing to the kids as well as make the parents feel like they are not able to practice their religion freely.  Yea there are private schools that allow such teachings but many people cannot afford that. Maybe at least through middle school there could be an option for parents to let their kids take a different class that doesn't speak against what they are trying to teach there kids.

Well, talking about Creationism (and there is a spectrum of creationism) is not an establishment of religion. It is another theory as to how the universe comes to being. Also, you are incorrect in saying that science only encourages critical thinking and evidence based reasoning, because religion also has that as well called theology. Both of them require critical thinking, evidence based reasoning, and faith in the material as well as the sources. 

I don't think it would be appropriate for just the science class, since biology, chemistry, and physics focuses on the core understandings of those fields and not necessarily focus a lot on individual theories, but if there is a philosophy of science class or an origins class, it would definitely need to be discussed in those classes in school.

play4fun : You misunderstood me. If you read my original post, I never said that only science encouraged rational and critical thinking, rather, that's what science is based upon, finding a bunch of evidence and then drawing a conclusion. There is never complete faith in one theory, as even though there might be mountains of evidence, at any time, one new piece of evidence suggesting the contrary could raise doubts. I'm not going to get into a debate about the credibility of the bible vs. the credibility of science. I was mostly talking about the biblical version of events that some people want to push into the classroom, not all aspects of creationism. I agree with you that kids should be exposed to all the theories of how we came to be and such, as being exposed to as many different ideas as possible encourages more open - minded thinking and independent thought. Just keep the science in the science classroom and don't present creationism as a scientifically backed theory. Mainly what I disagree with are people that try push creationism into schools in order to present their viewpoint as a viable alternative to a well established and backed scientific theory. If there were different classes that educated people about creationism that weren't related to science class, I'd be fine with that.
fightorace : In my opinion, it is not healthy for kids to have one worldview pushed on them before they are intellectually maturing enough to  independently ponder the essential questions of how we came to be and such. Learning conflicting viewpoints is healthy, and encourages more objective and free thinking.

Again, I'm not here to talk about the amount of evidence supporting religious viewpoints vs. scientific viewpoints. That's a debate for another day. All I want is your opinion on creationism in the public school system. Private schools can do as they like. Should it be presented as the only truth, or presented along with scientific theories, or be excluded altogether? Does a religious theory really belong in a science classroom?

Sometimes what I type comes out different than what I'm actually trying to convey, so if you need any clarification or have an opposing viewpoint, I'm always open to that.

epic-san :

I wouldn't have either evolution, or creationism taught in public schools.

I'm a little confused by these two statements below:

"In my opinion, it is not healthy for kids to have one worldview pushed on them before they are intellectually maturing enough to  independently ponder the essential questions of how we came to be and such."

"Learning conflicting viewpoints is healthy, and encourages more objective and free thinking."

Do you mean that it's healthy to hear conflicting viewpoints only after they reach a certain age?

Sword legion : On the contrary, I meant that they should be taught different worldviews from an objective standpoint when they're young, so that when they are older, they can look at all the available options and make their own decisions. For example, if a child asked an authority figure how the world came to be, they could tell the child the scientific viewpoint but also their belief, and tell the child that people believe different things, and it's not wrong to do so. 

I don't feel like keeping this thread open, so...

Local Mods :

Would you mind closing? No real reason, I just feel like this isn't a very good thread. 

Over here I was thought creationism in religion class and about evolution in biology class and nobody ever complained. I guess the religion teacher and the biology teachers were even buddies outside school.

I mean sure, things here are different and all but to be truly honest, I never understood the big fight in America about what kids are being thought in school about creationism or evolution. Does it really have to be one or the other? Is it really so dangerous just to teach both and have people make up their own minds? And pardon my ignorance since I don't know any real facts about the education system there.

fightorace : What about parents trying to raise their kids in a creationist view of the world?" That argument really only works if creationism was the only religious view of the world. That is a very narrow mined way of thinking. If creationism should be put in science class because of that reason, then here is what you get. "What about parents trying to raise their kids in a Scientologist view of the world?" "What about parents trying to raise their kids in a Hinduism view of the world?" The government forces them to send their kids to school where they are told Christian creationist  things in disagreement with THEIR parents. That is precisely why creationism shouldn't be put in the public school classrooms. If you put one religious belief in it, then you have to put ALL the religious beliefs in it. So then you are right back to your original point in that they are being forced to learn things in disagreement of their parent's view. But that is the only way to not have the government show alliance to one religion. But I think it would be agreed that that would solve nothing, but just create more problems. Just because Christianity is the majority religion in this country doesn't mean that it gets to be the only one under consideration to what is taught in schools or incorporated into the government. 

rcarter2 :  You misunderstand the meaning of my post.

fightorace : How so? (not trying to be rude) Can you explain where interpreted it wrong? It seems the post was saying that not teaching creationism in a science class is not fair because it says things in disagreement from what their religion tells them. I'm not really sure how to get any other interpretation than that.

But I don't think that it is considered unfair. Yes, the government forces kids to be educated. Yes, public schools must teach science, not faith. Yes, science often goes against the faith of religion. But it is not true that schools don't let others practice their religion freely. Far from it. Despite what FOX News likes to make people thing, there are no rules in school against the students praying or doing something religious. The kids who got in trouble didn't get in trouble for practicing their religion. They get in trouble for practicing it in a way that is either disruptive to the classroom or disrespectful to others who don't share the same view. But FOX likes to promote that you get in trouble for practicing your religion because they like to think there is a "War on Christianity". But also, if anything, having kids learn about scientific explanation is good for their religion. It is a common preach that there are many temptations and distractions in the world that will shake your faith. They are ways to test your faith. If you go through it with your faith intact, then your come out stronger (in your faith). If a science class is enough to unravel your religious beliefs, then the faith was not strong enough to begin with. And it isn't like things like evolution are commonly taught to more impressionable elementary school kids. My wife is an elementary school teacher. I see what their science classes are like. Nothing remotely related to the beginning of the Universe or the development of our planet is even really taught until they are young adults who have had time to develop their own view. If science class changes their belief, it is very likely that something else would have later anyway.

Creationism should be taught at least as much as other theories are being taught. The thing is, a lot of concepts in science are taught as if they are facts. However, concepts like the Big Bang are not proven, and therefore illogical to assume to be true. In order to assume that something is true it must be proven true, either that or it must be proven that the opposite is false. For example, there's a rumor going around that little Timmy is allergic to peanuts because it got an allergic reaction a little while after he ate a peanut. You can't assume that he is allergic to peanuts because that event alone isn't proof. A good way to do this is to prove that the idea that he's NOT allergic is false. Of course, this wouldn't be very nice to do in real life, but if you were to perform an experiment in which you try to prove that he's not allergic by feeding him peanuts and expecting no reaction, when the reaction occurs every time you would be able to logically assume that Timmy is allergic to peanuts.

As of right now, no theories about the creation of the universe have been proven to be true and therefore shouldn't be taught as if they are true. This does not mean that the IDEAS shouldn't be taught. I believe creationism should be taught, because it's hypocritical to teach other theories and not creationism. Sure, some may find it to be offensive, but others will find it offensive that anti-religious theories are being taught, so you really can't teach one without the other without offending someone.

On the topic of assumptions and logic, there is a reason why people do believe that God created the universe without any proof. That reason is of course faith. Faith is a very powerful thing that surpasses logic. I myself have faith that God created the universe, even if I have no proof, and others who do not agree will of course find my reasoning illogical because they don't share this faith with me. An example of this: let's say you have a friend. This friend tells you that they are not interested in your sister. You have faith in this friend and you believe them. Then someone gives you "proof" that they are indeed interested in your sister. You still have faith in them though, so you believe your friend anyway. This is because, like I said, anything is possible. You have faith that there is some sort of hole in this proof, and choose to believe your friend. This is why we can't technically logically assume anything as big as the creation of the universe without faith. Even if there was proof supporting the Big Bang, it's still possible that there's some sort of crazy thing going on that makes it APPEAR to be the only part of the story, however there is actually more to it that we do not understand. Again with an example: We have just "proven" that Timmy is allergic to peanuts because he keeps having a reaction. It's logical to assume that yes, when he eats peanuts he will have a reaction. However, what we do not see is that there are tiny organism in his body that have a severe distaste for peanuts, so they inject poisons into Timmy to get him to stop eating them, making it appear that he is having a reaction when really there's little aliens hurting him. So yeah, we can only see one part of this story, but really there is another level to it that we don't understand. That is why, even if the Big Bang were proven to be true, it's still possible for God to have caused it and for creationism to be true, even though it looks impossible. Of course this leads to creative thinking, which scientists tend to have distaste for, even though they can't logically disprove it and therefore can't logically assume that it's not true.

SO, yes, creationism should be taught alongside other theories, because anything could be logically true. The problem is, we live in a liberal environment in which the majority believe that speaking about religion is hindering learning, even though that's entirely unfounded.

OracleofthePenguin : A scientific theory is formed when an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests it, and no evidence contradicts it. None of it. The only reason it's called a theory is because it is technically impossible to truly prove anything. Gravity is a scientific theory just as much as the big bang and evolution. These theories have been founded off of massive amounts of research. For example, as a hypothetical situation, let's say that little Timmy was very long lived. He ate a peanut every hour for 200 years. Every single time, he had an allergic reaction five minutes after eating it. Scientists checked him for any other possible variables in his body, including the micro organism with bad taste. We can't definitively prove that he's allergic to peanuts, but it's really, really obvious that he is. Also, teaching that god created the universe and not going against the first amendment would mean that every single theory of creation would have to be taught to prevent it looking like the government is being partial to one creation theory of one religion. Remember, the United States of America was founded on many principles, one of the most prominent being the separation of church and state. 

Also, scientists don't dislike creative thinking. Creative thinking is what brings our understanding of the universe to new heights. Scientists use evidence based thinking, so claims without any good evidence are unscientific, and don't belong in the science classroom. Faith in itself is unscientific. If Darwin had presented the theory of evolution, with no evidence, saying that he "just had faith" that it was true, he would have became the laughingstock of the scientific community. Scientific conclusions are drawn from the meticulous observation of the world around us. If we find no evidence, and therefore no reason, to believe something, then we don't believe it. Nothing can be disproven, but an infinite number of claims can be made, and only a few are backed up by massive amounts of evidence. Those are scientific theories.

Not saying that your faith is wrong, of course, but it does not belong in the science classroom. Faith and science contradict each other. If you want faith based thinking in the science classroom, then I want evidence based thinking in church. I want evolution, the big bang theory, and the fact that there is very little evidence for faith based beliefs in all churches. Doesn't seem so nice, huh? Of course, faith can always be discussed and debated in philosophy classes, but it should not be presented in the science classroom next to theories with much more evidence. Science class is to expose people to science, not religion. They can either accept what they learn, or not accept it. It's their choice. In the end, what they choose to believe is their choice. Learning about different religion from an objective viewpoint in a class different from science would be a cool idea, for example. Religion is heavily integrated with our culture, and kids should not be cut off from it by any means. But leave it to the social studies, English, and philosophy classes.

That's my view, and even if I said things that might have offended what you believe, I was only expressing my side of the story. 

epic-san : Hmm not sure you understood everything I said, although I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I should have said "invisible" organisms in that example. The point was is that it was something we absolutely can't prove. The point is, there can always very definitely be something that disproves a theory, a piece of information that we have not or cannot acquire, which is why it's illogical to assume a theory that has to do with something as grand as the creation of the universe is true without faith of some sort. Also, I don't mean that you need to go into specifics of creationism, but the idea should still be taught, the idea that an incomprehensible being greater than ourselves created the universe.

OracleofthePenguin : My point still stands that a scientific theory has no visible contradictory evidence. If another piece of evidence comes along that contradicts it, it will raise doubts, will be tested, and another theory might be constructed. Scientific theories can be at any point disproven, but the current ones haven't yet. Any theory can be disproven at any time, but in science class, it is the job of the science teachers to teach the current theories of science. Maybe those kids will use evidence based reasoning in new, creative ways to further our understanding of the universe.
 
These scientific theories, when applied, have worked every time, so it is logical to teach them to kids. Again, nothing can be proven true, but some things have much more evidence behind them, and those theories are what should be taught in science. We have observed the universe expanding, and with complex mathematics and physics, we reversed the expansion back to one point in time, which is what we call the singularity, when the universe was incredibly hot and dense and all mathematical models and laws of our universe fall apart. The big bang is a great expansion that started the formation of our universe. The idea of specifically a higher being kickstarting the big bang shouldn't be taught in science, but it should be and always is mentioned that no one knows what happened before the big bang, and that people can only shoot wild guesses at that.

epic-san : Yes, they don't have much for contradictions, which is why they should not be assumed to be true. They can be taught as what they are, theories, but not as what they are not, facts.

OracleofthePenguin : By "they", what are you referring to from my previous post?

epic-san :

People complain that you can't teach creationism in public schools because it would favor a certain religion and is against the constitution.

But I think that it's wrong to teach evolution because we are now favoring a totally new group of people. Should the government really be favoring anyone?

epic-san : Oh sorry, I was talking about the theories.

Sword legion : This.

Sword legion : Teaching evolution isn't about favoring a faith. It is about teaching our current scientific knowledge of the world around us so that kids learn about how things work and can contribute to furthering the technological capabilities and scientific achievements of the human race. Again, faith is different from science for the reason of evidence and the fact that when virtually proven science is applied, it is always consistent with the world around us.

OracleofthePenguin : Think of theories based on faith and scientific theories based on evidence as two different pairs of balanced scales.


With faith there is no evidence for or against, so the scales remain balanced. With scientific theories, all of the factual observations of the universe around us are consistent with these theories, so the scales are tipped with piles of evidence validating it on one side and no contradictory evidence on the other. Restating an example, the universe is expanding. We know this because the distance between galaxies and stars is becoming measurably larger. By making a mathematical model, we can trace the expansion back to a point we call the singularity. 

Anyways, my point is that science relies on evidence for validation. Scientific theories have an overwhelming amount of evidence to validate them, and none contradicting, and all our observations are consistent with them. They were formed from evidence. Therefore, they are more scientific than the theory of a creator, which is much more more speculative, but by no means is a wrong way of thinking. It just isn't a scientific way of thinking and shouldn't be taught as science. Again, social studies class is a more than appropriate time to learn about religions and their beliefs and cultures from an objective standpoint.