Creationism in science classes

[Mycernius]

I was listening to the radio this morning and this article was read out by Sarah Kennedy
Royal Society: Schools should show creationism 'respect'
Now I am for creationism being taught, but only in RE lessons, but it seems that the evangelical mobs have decided to export (or infect) their rubbish from Kansas to the UK and call for it to be taught in science class.
Creationism, for those not familiar with the term, is the belief that god or gods created the universe and all life in it. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the even more radical idea that the universe was not only created by God, but 6000 years ago (I kid you not, their are plenty of adults who believe this; Kent Hovind, Ben Stein, Ted Haggard, Mike Huckabee just for starters).

Creationism, or rather the Judeo-christian, which includes Islam, is the creationism that they want taught as a science. It beggers beief that people even think this is a science.
Science is about looking at something, forming an hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, reviewing it, have it peer reviewed, redoing, retesting, re-reviewed and maybe, just maybe it will become accepted as a law. A scienctific theory is something that takes similar laws and gathers them under a theory title. For example the Laws of Gravity fall under the theory of Gravitation. For a better explanation see this from Wiki:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

A difference in usage of the word "fact" contributes to confusion in regard to the meaning of "theory". An appreciation of the various meanings of "fact" and "knowledge" can help to clarify an understanding of the meanings of "theory". (See also: relativity of knowledge, under Relativism.)

Creationism is not a theory, not even a hypotheses. It takes a set of pre-concieved ideas, from holy scripture, and then fits the world into these scriptures. It will not bend, deviate or adapt, it remains fixed. This is not science, not by a long shot, and saying that it should be taught as a science is the sign of the ignorant. Actually with leading creationists, the wilfully ignorant. What is more annoying is that many creationist try and dsiguse it by giving it the name of Intelligent Design. In fact it is just creationism, leading to the term used on many atheist sites as anyone who follows this as IDiots. Not only does ID not address its assertions; they do not research, test, peer review to show ID; they spend their time trying to debunk the years of real research.

It is because of the religious right trying to invade our science classrooms that gave rise to the creation of the Flying Spaghetti monster, when creationism was tried to be taught in Kansas state schools. (They failed) What is more annoying is that the creationism they want taught along side real science is from the Judeo-christian tradition. I'm sure they would be the first to complain if Shinto , Buddhist or Hindu creationism was taught along side their creation myth.

This isn't just because I am an athiest, but I feel that such things should firmly remain in the RE classroom. The religious right, a minority, are not only making themselves look foolish with this, but are dragging the liberal believers with them.

 

[Al-Kindi]

Nothing

they say that ｴtaoｴ is nothing and that we cannot understand/comprehend etc what ｴgod/allahｴ is.( read some work of Lao Tze or ancient middle-eastern texts that eventually ended up in the tora/koran etc)
now what is ｴnothingｴ? everything comes from ｴnothingｴ, ｴnothingｴ has no beginning or end(donｴt think cyclus wise please)...we always think that everything has a beginning(and an end?) but our minds can somehow not think that something can exist without a beginning and an end and that something can come from ｴnothingｴ.
people very often use the argument: if ｴgodｴ or ｴtaoｴ made everything, than who made ｴtaoｴor ｴgodｴ. or tend to know how our planet evolved/big bang theory etc, we always go to the roots of things and to their roots and their roots etc forever and ever. when one realizes that everything comes from ｴnothingｴ and that nothing cannot be explained/put to words/has no beginning and no end/no cyclus, you will either become paranoid or enlightened. or neither if that makes sense.
our ancestors knew this already which is why we have such an ridiculous amount of religions all over the world.
so how foolish and non-realistic things people believe in might seem, it is just their way to go trough life and how they c ｴnothingｴ.
because seriously, NO ONE can explain ｴnothingｴ, NO ONE knows what all this universe/life is about/why etc. but go back to the roots of everything, you will find out nothing is everything and that we cannot comprehend what ｴnothingｴ is.
all I can say do not fear ｴnothingｴ. I donｴt really know what Iｴm talking about right now but seriously, Nothing= imo ｴgodｴ and no Iｴm not religious or anything like that.

 

[Al-Kindi]

btw threadstarter, look something up about ｴAl-Kindiｴ......many religious people use science to explain ｴnothingｴ(god). wasnｴt the fella that came with the ｴevolutionｴ theory a ｴchristianｴ.? the people who are doing stem cell research in Teheran, Iran right now are shiｴite muslims lol.


all science should be studied by as many views as possible. the moment we close somthing/become close minded for/to a certain aspect, is the moment we let ignorancy take over our minds.

ｴcreationismｴ should be taken serious just like we take the theory of evolution serious....why? because both cannot explain the origines....both canｴt explain ｴnothingｴ.

(afcourse some theories hold more ground regarding reality, but we should never ignore the more non-realistic ones)

 

[bakaKanadajin]

The only reason anything like creationism should be taken seriously is simply not to hurt people's feelings because everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Beyond that, it's not a theory that can be taken seriously because there is even less scientific proof to support it than the evolutionary theory. Can you really ignore the entire fossil record and say that the Earth sprang to life 6000 years ago over the course of 7 days because a kind, old, bearded man-like entity in the sky thought it'd be neat?

Again, everyone's entitled to their beliefs, but I draw the line at teaching creationism in school to children and holding it up as being equally valid. It's idiocy. If you want to have your crazy ideas that's fine, have them, but can we here in the west stop compromising the children of today and our generations of tomorrow with this idiotic, xenophobic, right-wing, fundmentalist, biblical, nonsensical, flawed logic of a Christian God being the be-all and end-all of all things on this planet?

Anyone ever watch Jesus Camp? We criticize fundamentalism and religious zealotry in other countries but it's happening here on our doorstep. Creationism is a part of it.

 

[Mycernius]

btw threadstarter, look something up about 'Al-Kindi'......many religious people use science to explain 'nothing'(god). wasn't the fella that came with the 'evolution' theory a 'christian'.? the people who are doing stem cell research in Teheran, Iran right now are shi'ite muslims lol.

And that has to do with what? Whatever their beliefs are it doesn't get in the way of their research. That is an appeal to authority. In Iran most of the population are Muslim, so it doesn't surprise me that they are muslims. Newton was a devout believer in God, but it doesn't demean what he discovered about gravity.

'creationism' should be taken serious just like we take the theory of evolution serious....why? because both cannot explain the origines....both can't explain 'nothing'.
(afcourse some theories hold more ground regarding reality, but we should never ignore the more non-realistic ones)

Creationism should stay in the world of religion. It isn't a science. That is why it shouldn't be taught in a science class. If you want to teach it then teach in a RE class along with all other creation myths, but do no0t teach it as fact.
BTW, evolution deals with how life evolves. It has nothing to do with the creation of life, creation of the universe or the formation of planets.

 

[Anohito]

I think you'll find that it is impossible to have a serious discussion about Creationism/Intelligent Design. The religious zealots and their apologists will come into the thread with posts full of sectarian theology and religious supremacism, rhetorical fallacies, emotional blackmail (e.g., charges of "anti-religious bigotry"), unwarranted demands for "fairness" (as though it could possibly be fair to teach sectarian theology in a science classroom), distortions, misinformation, etc. Those people have little or no use for objective reality. All that matters to them is Theological Correctness and Ideological Soundness.

 

[nanook]

One of the problems might be, that not everyone is bright enough to deeply understand science. Not surprisingly, almost anyone's mind boggles at quantum physics, doesn't it. Well mine does Other people might not be really that interested. All these people would have to believe in science pretty much the same way as they would believe in a religion. That would bring science down to the same level as religion and you'll have to compete. And you will lose. 4 points:

Solution: Science has no solution to questions like "what's after my death", "meaning of life" etc. Religion has an answer on anything, believe me, they really do.

Threat: Religion has lots of threats. Hell, demons, ghosts, purgatories, you name it. Science? Nothing, even the LHC failed miserably to produce black holes this week. You better be religious, if you don't want to go to hell.

Entertainment: Lots of it in religion. From the soap operas about the ancient Greek gods on the Olympos to the bloody crusades, jihads, beheadings, crucifictions, deluges. Lots of stories, that keep you entertained for a life time. Science? Nothing, maybe your upcoming math test; sounds rather like a threat, really.

The Truth Science is all about finding the truth, isn't it. Religion already has it. Every religion under the sun is subscribed to the only truth, as is science. Draw.

So, 4 points for religion, 1 point for science. Science, therefore, loses, sorry

Me? I like Spaghetti

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Science is about looking at something, forming an hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, reviewing it, have it peer reviewed, redoing, retesting, re-reviewed and maybe, just maybe it will become accepted as a law.

I think this is the key point. If it doesn't meet those criteria, it's not science, so only stuff that meets those criteria should be taught in science classes. Looking at it that way circumvents the problem of allowing people to believe what they want. Sure, science is about explaining how the world is, but only in the very rigorous way described above. While I reluctantly admit you can believe other things about how the world is, if they don't follow that process they don't belong in a science class.

One of the problems might be, that not everyone is bright enough to deeply understand science.

I agree, but unfortunately I think it's often not through lack of aptitude but through an unwillingness to consider anything that goes against religious indoctrination.

All these people would have to believe in science pretty much the same way as they would believe in a religion. That would bring science down to the same level as religion and you'll have to compete.

I disagree with that. Science wins because it deals with facts, so it's true whether or not you believe in it

Entertainment:

Errr, you forgot about geeks like me and Mycernius. We get excited when they send a particle through a tunnel and a monitor lights up.

 

[Al-Kindi]

One of the problems might be, that not everyone is bright enough to deeply understand science. Not surprisingly, almost anyone's mind boggles at quantum physics, doesn't it. Well mine does Other people might not be really that interested. All these people would have to believe in science pretty much the same way as they would believe in a religion. That would bring science down to the same level as religion and you'll have to compete. And you will lose. 4 points:.

Solution: Science has no solution to questions like "what's after my death", "meaning of life" etc. Religion has an answer on anything, believe me, they really do.

I beg to differ, I know many(especially african and asian) religions that don't have those answers.....unless you only consider the abrahamic faiths as 'religion'. (don't say that does religions are not considered religions by your standards because the people who follow them actually do, so how are way to say that one who follows 'tao' (not taoism) is not religious)

Threat: Religion has lots of threats. Hell, demons, ghosts, purgatories, you name it. Science? Nothing, even the LHC failed miserably to produce black holes this week. You better be religious, if you don't want to go to hell..

again I c your knowlegde of religions worldwide is limited, not only are there many religions who don't have all the hell and demons crap: there are also many muslims/christians and jews who practice science and explain certain aspects of their religion with pure and naked science: example : the islamic scientists who research stemm cells etc might c certain diseases as djins/demons but uses high tec modern day stemm cell/dna research to research those diseases/djins. there using all the protocols a poster previously mentioned, they just label the origines/reasoning of the disease differently, and lets be honest here....u and I and knowone else can give hat answer,(Yes bactiera, but where did that came from and before that and before that, thats how we go on and on to explain the disease untill we can't explain it) the difference is that in this case the muslim would call what can't be explained a djin and a 'atheist' would call it something else. but both do not know the so called 'truth'. get it?

Entertainment: Lots of it in religion. From the soap operas about the ancient Greek gods on the Olympos to the bloody crusades, jihads, beheadings, crucifictions, deluges. Lots of stories, that keep you entertained for a life time. Science? Nothing, maybe your upcoming math test; sounds rather like a threat, really..

who defined Algebra again lol.....lol I know what you mean but it's absurd that you think that most religious folks take everything which is written literally. everyone has a different interpertation of things, the fact that you even begin to talk about entertainment when discussing Science/religion displays/shows your own interpertation.

The Truth Science is all about finding the truth, isn't it. Religion already has it. Every religion under the sun is subscribed to the only truth, as is science. Draw..

again I beg to differ, many religions do not claim to know the truth and many who practice the ones you feel claim to know 'the truth' do not c it that way or something else etc etc, generalisations like this are never good I know but again it is all about how you interpertate things because many religions(including islam,christianity etc) urge people to look for the so called truth...again it all depends on ones view.

So, 4 points for religion, 1 point for science. Science, therefore, loses, sorry

Me? I like Spaghetti

when one mentioned 'creationism' I automaticly thought about our history: even people during the indusvalley and sumerian era's had creationism aspects, infact I consider many aspects in 'atheists' views as creationism....maybe I'm taking the word to seriously.

but if creationism=bible belt ideology, than I agree that it should not be teached in science classes...however if creationism means creationism in all aspects of(universal) life using naked science to explain it( Like many of our ancestors did: from the babyloniers to medieevil muslims) than why not accept it? it's about the science that is used.......now if the science (like some else explained it) is sound, than why dismiss/hate on the scientists religion/view of life(eventhough you never know how some really sees her or his religion)

point is that it shouldn't be atheist vs religious, religion should not determine science and vice versa. they should both be open to eachother.

you c during the islamic caliphat, brilliant scientists were murdered because some ortodox 'fools condemned every aspect of science what they considered not 'true', nowadays the trend is the other way around when it should be balanced because both interpertations contain millions of other interpertations.

 

[Hezam]

if you read Qur'an you will be surprised,many facts realized 1429 years ago in Qur'an and these facts are the same in the Science now.please read before post about islam.
you can open NASA site and read about the space and the earth and then compared the Science to Qur'an,just do it and post again *_^

 

[Haruspex]

Bloody hell! Now, that being said, let me begin.

Religion and science open to each other? Wins the BS award of the month. Its always that slippery tolerance. Lets love each other, lets be friends, lets tolerate each other.
Well, that idiocy. How could religion and science be buddies when religions was hell bent on getting rid of science just a few hundred years ago. What? Now that science holds the reins it should be absolutely forgiving, lest it hurt the feelings of some coward afraid to toy with the idea that teleology is just a bunch of shite, and confession doesn't add any happy moments to afterlife, merely takes away some from the current one. GG.

Science is not a moral thing, science does what its job is, and if It didn't seek the truth, it wouldn't be science. Flower power doesn't make science all flexible.

Im having difficulties though. How the hell did this get accepted? I mean, is everyone drunk before such decisions or something?

Scientific information from a medieval era holy book is around as useful as the pope's balls.

You can't make trustworthy scientific observations without the necessary tools.
What is naked science? Stating the obvious.

 

[Mycernius]

if you read Qur'an you will be surprised,many facts realized 1429 years ago in Qur'an and these facts are the same in the Science now.please read before post about islam.
you can open NASA site and read about the space and the earth and then compared the Science to Qur'an,just do it and post again *_^

I knew at some point someone would come along and claim that the qu'ran/bible is really science. The fact that the people that try and prove this have been shown to be false time and time again does not stop it. Apologists always try and prove that their particular brand of religion is really science. It isn't. Taking random quotes and fitting them to current research and facts does not make it a science book in anyway whatsoever. It is called quote mining and it is something the religious are every good at when trying to either discredit something or someone, or to prove that their holy scripture is correct. Although when it comes to scripture the term cherry picking is also used.

I should also point out the "facts" you so readliy accept in the bible or qu'ran are from older traditions and where well known before Islam or Christianity existed. Normally from Greek origin. I suggest you read this article. You will probably dismiss it out of hand, but it might get you to think beyond what has been forced into you since you were a child. I gather atheism isn't really tolerated in Saudi Arabia
Article
Another one

 

[Al-Kindi]

I knew at some point someone would come along and claim that the qu'ran/bible is really science. The fact that the people that try and prove this have been shown to be false time and time again does not stop it. Apologists always try and prove that their particular brand of religion is really science. It isn't. Taking random quotes and fitting them to current research and facts does not make it a science book in anyway whatsoever. It is called quote mining and it is something the religious are every good at when trying to either discredit something or someone, or to prove that their holy scripture is correct. Although when it comes to scripture the term cherry picking is also used.
I should also point out the "facts" you so readliy accept in the bible or qu'ran are from older traditions and where well known before Islam or Christianity existed. Normally from Greek origin. I suggest you read this You will probably dismiss it out of hand, but it might get you to think beyond what has been forced into you since you were a child. I gather atheism isn't really tolerated in Saudi Arabi

I always find it disrespectfull that people always say ｴmostly/normally of Greek origineｴ, totally ignoring the middle-eastern/asian and african civilisations that existed thousands of years before the Greeks and which influenced the Greeks(and Romans) on an extreme level, not only regarding astronomy and other science but even the entire alphabet. ｴalphaｴ comes from ｴalefｴ and ｴbetaｴ comes from ｴbetｴ......maybe you havenｴt noticed but, what is written in the koran/tora/bible basically the abrahamic faiths, have african/middle-eastern origines, origines we can track back to the ｴkhemetiansｴ and even way back to the place between the rivers(Mesopotamia).....
seriously, Greek history is amazing, but when it comes to ancient traditions/religions/science, the afrikans/asians influenced the greeks. afcourse during the middle-ages ancient greek knowledge heavily influenced the islamic philosophers(which was after Mohammeds time afcourse), but please do not ignore what happened the thousands of years before that lol....

 

[Al-Kindi]

Bloody hell! Now, that being said, let me begin.

Religion and science open to each other? Wins the BS award of the month. Its always that slippery tolerance. Lets love each other, lets be friends, lets tolerate each other.
Well, that idiocy. How could religion and science be buddies when religions was hell bent on getting rid of science just a few hundred years ago. What? Now that science holds the reins it should be absolutely forgiving, lest it hurt the feelings of some coward afraid to toy with the idea that teleology is just a bunch of shite, and confession doesn't add any happy moments to afterlife, merely takes away some from the current one. GG.

Science is not a moral thing, science does what its job is, and if It didn't seek the truth, it wouldn't be science. Flower power doesn't make science all flexible.

Im having difficulties though. How the hell did this get accepted? I mean, is everyone drunk before such decisions or something?

Scientific information from a medieval era holy book is around as useful as the pope's balls.

You can't make trustworthy scientific observations without the necessary tools.
What is naked science? Stating the obvious.

again I c that ignorance rules your mind. not only do you totally ignore history and it's scientists(from Al-Kindi to today)

seriously, do you really believe that only non-religious people can practice science. is it so hard to understand that many religious scientists basically defined what you call 'naked science' today.....but they only explain the unexplained differently/they explain what cannot be labeled differently. u know the 'nothing' I was talking about.

many Jewish and Islamic Scientists defined modern day science methods, the protocols etc or what you call naked science stating the obvious, only their motivation was to understand the ways of 'God'.

I don't know why 'atheists' have such a hard time acknowledging that. you only c the intolerant ortodox religious nut cases but you forget all the great religious people that basically made science as it is today.

but hey, just keep hating, 'God' seems to give you headaches so I can understand why you tend to do what you do.

 

[Mycernius]

The Qu'ran is a re-written version of christian and Jewish scripture, with pre-islamic myth thrown in. The Bible OT is Jewish and the NT is a mixture of mainly Pauls opinions and mixed versions of the cult of Mithras, Sol Invictus and a number of other myths. the Jewish scripture is a mixture of pre-jewish myths, Sumerian, Mesopotanian, Babylonian, Egyptian myths.

Many discoveries were made before the Greeks, but our philosophy and scientific methods are based upon greek ideas and methodology. We owe modern biology to Aristole and Theophrastus. Eratosthenes was the first to measure how big the planet was, thus realsing it was a globe, not flat. the came up with Earth sciences, which helps us to find fuels today, although Aristole did think that earthquakes were caused by winds within the earth and from the sun and volcanoes were where the winds escaped. Anaximander and Empedocles had the ideas that would fall under evolution today. Natural selection was an idea originally greek.
These are all ideas that I have seen apologists, especially Muslim apologists use to try and prove that their holy book is really a science book.

Whilst I am not trying to take away what many Asian and Egyptian people discovered our western thought is based on the ideas set down 2500 years ago by the Greeks. The Chinese did great research in astronomy. The zero is an Indian invention, although the Mayans did also use the concept of a zero. There are many more, too many to list, but as I said the Bible and the Qu'ran are reaching into mainly into Greek science and discoveries, hence the article I posted with my last post.

 

[Al-Kindi]

The Qu'ran is a re-written version of christian and Jewish scripture, with pre-islamic myth thrown in. The Bible OT is Jewish and the NT is a mixture of mainly Pauls opinions and mixed versions of the cult of Mithras, Sol Invictus and a number of other myths. the Jewish scripture is a mixture of pre-jewish myths, Sumerian, Mesopotanian, Babylonian, Egyptian myths.
Many discoveries were made before the Greeks, but our philosophy and scientific methods are based upon greek ideas and methodology. We owe modern biology to Aristole and Theophrastus. Eratosthenes was the first to measure how big the planet was, thus realsing it was a globe, not flat. the came up with Earth sciences, which helps us to find fuels today, although Aristole did think that earthquakes were caused by winds within the earth and from the sun and volcanoes were where the winds escaped. Anaximander and Empedocles had the ideas that would fall under evolution today. Natural selection was an idea originally greek.
These are all ideas that I have seen apologists, especially Muslim apologists use to try and prove that their holy book is really a science book.
Whilst I am not trying to take away what many Asian and Egyptian people discovered our western thought is based on the ideas set down 2500 years ago by the Greeks. The Chinese did great research in astronomy. The zero is an Indian invention, although the Mayans did also use the concept of a zero. There are many more, too many to list, but as I said the Bible and the Qu'ran are reaching into mainly into Greek science and discoveries, hence the article I posted with my last post.

you know about the egyptians and certain ancient middle-eastern/asian civilisations but you still claim what you just claimed?
people knew the earth wasnｴt flat literally thousands of years before those you mentioned even walked the earth. the people who believed the sun and moon were planets 2 and thought that there were 12 planets. you mention Sumer/indus valley region civilisations but donｴt know that they knew the size of the earth and knew the earth was flat? 7 days a week, 60 seconds a minute etc comes from them lol. you might want to check out how far they went regarding science.
I donｴt think we can say that something was ｴoriginallyｴ a (insert random civilisation) idea, what I do believe is that we cannot ignore Egyptian/Phoenician(Minoen??) and other african/middle-eastern/meditaranian/asian civilisations influence on eachother and the greeks/romans.
with all due respect to greek history etc, but I donｴt understand how you can say that our philosophy/certain methods etc are based on Greek findings when those greek ideas were based on foreign ideas and their entire writibg system/religions/ideology/philosophy came from ｴoutsideｴ.
itｴs like saying that they speak ｴamericanｴ in the US instead of saying that they speak english in the us.....or acting like The brits really had no influence on how america is today.

 

[Haruspex]

Now take the stuff you find in the Qu'ran and apply it to modern day science. The outcome will be stillborn, they are not compatible, when it comes to science, holy books are useless. And you know what? It is quite damn easy to come up with good educated guesses, and than apply the principle of charity to defend the outrageously vague, disfigured child.

 

[Glenski]

From the beginning of the article quoted in the OP:
"The Royal Society has backed the discussion of creationism in school science classes, kicking off what promises to be a spectacular row amongst the country's top boffins.

The boffinry talking-shop's director of education told the British Association's festival of science in Liverpool that creationism should be examined in school science classes as a legitimate point of view.

Michael Reiss, who is both a professor of biology and a Church of England clergyman, took the position that with ten per cent of UK school children coming from families with creationist leanings, teachers should convey a message of "respect" for those beliefs while continuing to teach evolution."

Ok, so we want to be PC to every religion and culture, is that right?
Fine. Then science classes should have descriptions from the Flat Earth Society, all religious views on the creation of the universe, a serious dissection of the Bible (you do know how that was invented, don't you?), fairy tales, ghost stories, the Loch Ness monster, totem poles, folklore, etc.

NOT! Where will it end? That's my point here. Take as an example the fact that Japanese schools spend an incredible amount of time teaching such ancient history that they barely skim the surface of recent events, so that children hardly know the events from WWII on forward. Helloooooo.

Science classes should be only for science. Creationism, by its very name, is not science. A simple statement to students that the course will be about what most westerners take to be science and the scientific method, will suffice to stave off any moms and dads who believe otherwise. Keep the religious aspect out of the school.

Let Creationists teach creationism in their churches. That's you, Tom Cruise.

Enjoy this poke at creationism by Bill Maher.
MilkandCookies

 

[Mycernius]

Thanks for pointing out Japanese schools, and a question on that matter. Seeing that the religion of Japan is Shinto, do any of the leading Shinto leaders say that Shintos ideas on creationism should be taught in science class? I have a feeling the naswer will be no, however do any christian Japanese insist that christian creationism should be taught in the schools?

 

[Half-n-Half]

Creationism is not science, therefore it should not be taught in science class. Sounds obvious when you say it out loud, doesn't it?

 

[hideway]

I was wondering. Does this sort of thing happens anywhere else other than in the U.S.?

I always thought awkward that this kind of thought (wanting religious believes teached on school as if they were science) could even exist, let alone be a reality.

 

[Haruspex]

If truth be told, its more like a bloody nightmare. Any place, where God is an argument in a profane matter is a fookin sad place.

 

[vegitagojita]

I feel like I must comment because I don't agree with alot of the things posted on this thread. Maybe it is because there are alot of athiests posting. Athiests believe that science is god. Christians believe that that the God of Abraham is God, as do Muslims. There are alot of different people in the world that share a creationist view because of their faith. Athiests proclaim that all of these poeple (most of the world) are all idiots who are ignorant to science and believe absurd things like creation. Who the hell do you all think you are to say that your view of the universe is the only correct one.

I was raised a Christian and went to a Christian high school. I was NOT taught creationism in my science class because, just as many of you have stated, it is not science. I was taught however that evolution is a THEORY. The problem with your argument is that you want all public schools to teach athiesm. They don't teach theories like evolution to be THEORIES. They say that it is fact and that is the way the world is.

Our world is better because of science but let's not step any anybodys toes here and tell people of faith (any faith) that they are idiots because they believe something different.

 

[hideway]

I wonder what's your definition of God. Because there is no God in science. Science is merely the action of trying to understand things rationally. It is not a question of faith or wisdom. It is mostly critical thinking.

School should be agnostics, religion shouldn't play a role in public teaching, either by being teached or denied. School however should teach science as it is the engine for our future development. And the theory of evolution IS science.

You may not be an idiot, but anyone, who thinks both science and religion are equal fields and that should be treated as equal, surely is.

 

[alantin]

I have met many fanatic people who can't appreciate anyone who doesn't see things their way but the most interesting thing is that the most feverish people in this respect have been preaching the theory of evolution, called themselves critically and scientifically thinking atheists, and deemed anyone who doesn't buy the theory of evolution as it is 'a religious fanatic' with nothing to say that's worth listenig to. As if one's belief in one certain theory would define his worth!
They haven't really spared their insults either!

After having run into some of these people, the word 'atheist' has a pretty bad taste in my mouth..

For the record, I also know atheists that aren't lunatics! We get along very well respecting the others views.


I suppose all people look at the world through their colored glasses and no-one is competely impartial and able to look at a subject like this without any kind of prejudice.

In my opinnion science and religion both belong to school but neither should try to invade the others turf.

About how the universe came to be?
I simply think that it takes much more faith to believe that it just formed all on its own than to think that there was something that created it.
So. I do believe that there is intelligent design behind the universe.

About creationism, I only know little more than the name..
I never really was interested enough to look into it more.

The bottom line is that here we are trying to get along with each other.
Some managing better than others.


@hideway
Why aren't religion and science equal fields and how can you compare?
Both have important impact in the society in their own way.
They aren't the same and they aren't supposed to be but studying religions of the world in school is important to help people understand how other people think.
Understanding in turn helps avoid unnecessary conflicts.