Creationism in science classes

[Mycernius]

- Definition of "scientific theory":
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Which is exactly why creationism isn't a science. It is not falsifiable. It is an opinion, with no evidence to back up its claim apart from godunnit.

Macro and micro evolution are terms that the general scientific community dropped decades ago and are only used by creationists because evolution is testable and has been shown which shoots holes in their ID arguments.

So far, Remixer, you have thrown in aguments and statemnts to justify creationism without any actual understanding of what they are or how they work, ie: falsibility, the mis-use of macro and micro evolution. Have you just got the big book of creationisn nonsense by Harun Haya and quote from it, because so far all your points are typical creationist mis-direction and lack of understanding.

On another point, which form of creationism do we teach in the classroom? The Abrahamic version, the Hindu version, or Buddhist, Shinto etc.? There are approximately 10 000 living religions in the world today. Teach creation myths, but not in science as none of them are science, they are just myths.

 

[Bellevance]

Well said, Mycernius.

I wonder if you are familiar with QualiaSoup's excellent, enlightening videos on YouTube.

If not, let me encourage you (and everyone) to check them out. In this connection in particular, "Skewed Views of Science" is worth watching.

(The site here won't allow me to post the link or else I would, but the video is easy to find.)

 

[Emoni]

[youtube]-h9XntsSEro [/youtube]

Thanks for reminding me about that video Here it is. I believe there was a special tag to allow videos to be posted a few months back actually. I'm not going to spam the thread with youtube videos, but I have seen some VERY good explanations of evolution theory, genetics, abiogenesis theory, the big bang theory and more on youtube in the past. You literally could counter 99% of every uneducated creationist by just pointing to youtube I feel sometimes.

Good video. I couldn't help but grin at around 5:10 as Mycernius might imagine.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

"The person who declares evolution to be nonsense because no one's ever seen an ape mutate into a man is as conspicuously uninformed as the person who shouts "Snap!" at a poker game." I love it!

 

[Mycernius]

Well said, Mycernius.
I wonder if you are familiar with QualiaSoup's excellent, enlightening videos on YouTube.
If not, let me encourage you (and everyone) to check them out. In this connection in particular, "Skewed Views of Science" is worth watching.
(The site here won't allow me to post the link or else I would, but the video is easy to find.)

Thank you. I am not familiar with his videos, but do subscribe to
Thunderf00t, cdk007, potholer54, AndromedasWake, Donexodus2 (Who, as I understand, is a theist), AronRa and Extantdodo (who is back, again).
For anyone interested and not familiar with peoples videos please check them out.
BTW, you have to weait until you have posted 25 times before you can put up links. An anti-spam measure.

Thanks for putting up the vid Emoni. Yes, I did chuckle a bit.

 

[Malamis]

Well, to put it bluntly, it is also wrong. The Big Bang, to which Malamis was referring to with that quote, states the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state. For that there is evidence. It doesn't say everything exploded from nothing.

Apologies for the over simplification; I'm not particularly well informed of current non-theistic first cause theories. I remember someone floated a "circular nature of time" model a while ago, but I never followed it.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Apologies for the over simplification; I'm not particularly well informed of current non-theistic first cause theories. I remember someone floated a "circular nature of time" model a while ago, but I never followed it.

Well, that really is the only one unless you include a steady state universe or "branes." The "branes" thing (forgive me, I'm not sure how they refer to it, I don't think it is "Brane Theory") basically says the membranes of two universes oscillate and overlap causing a "Big Bang." I don't know much about this, and as one can imagine it is pretty speculative. No apologies needed

 

[bertiefink]

I think it's a fairly difficult situation because it really requires an understanding of science (biology). I myself know very little about science for one. It's a political war. As a Christian, I have to admit that there's probably a degree of dirty tactics from both sides (including pro-creationists) because it is a political battle. There's so many attempts at incriminating the other party that it's difficult to make proper judgment. When listening to actual scientists, there are experts in the field on both sides that put up very good arguments. Especially if you don't really understand completely what they are saying. We have this problem within Christianity itself pertaining to various doctrines. Experts on Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Hermenuetics are at complete odds with one another at times on given doctrines.

I think it's apparent that evolutionists, although emphasize that evolution does not disprove the concept of a God or creator, seem intent on disproving the Genesis account of creation. The battle is against fundamentalist Christians. Not Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. If Genesis can be proven false, this renders the Bible fallible. And thus, the arch enemy (fundamentalists) are defeated. And naturally, many Christians who may not necessarily understand science, oppose evolution monopolizing the science class room that their kids may attend.

 

[Emoni]

I think it's apparent that evolutionists, although emphasize that evolution does not disprove the concept of a God or creator, seem intent on disproving the Genesis account of creation.

Uh... what is an "evolutionist?" Is this a new religious of some sort based around the theory of evolution? Should people who believe in the existence of gravity be dubbed "gravitationalists?" Further more "evolution" has nothing to do with creation of life, only progression of life. If you want theories of possible ways life could have developed look into abiogenesis or something. The final aspect of this sentence simply solidifies a prime example of a fundamental gross understanding of evolution, science, and proof logic. Not only does evolution not have to do with "the Genesis account" (as if it was witnessed by someone... who wrote it down for a court case) it doesn't intend to "disprove" a myth of creation. Primarily because people being made out of sand and dirt by a big mighty "super friend" has never been REMOTELY PROVEN in the first place. It does not even have the position of being considered worth a valid argument worthy of an attempt to "disprove" it.

If Genesis can be proven false, this renders the Bible fallible.

Genesis hasn't BEEN proven, so of course it can't be proven false. If anything it the entire story is so ridiculous anyone looking at it in a non-religious context would consider it nothing more than a child's storybook tale. Furthermore, since when did the Bible gain "infallible status" from the start? This sentence along makes me think that you consider the Bible itself an actual being that is not fallible until proven to be so; a sidelined deity in someone's pocket.

Finally, I see no part of this being a "political battle," nor do I see any proof of it being so just cause YOU stated it to be such. I'm not going to try to guess what you are talking about in regards to "dirty tactics on both sides" as that statement is so vague I'm at a loss to even know what you are referring to.

 

[kusojiji]

Extremists on both sides of this issue are numbskulls, and the vast majority in the middle can't be bothered to get that worked up about it in any case.

 

[bertiefink]

Uh... what is an "evolutionist?" Is this a new religious of some sort based around the theory of evolution? Should people who believe in the existence of gravity be dubbed "gravitationalists?" Further more "evolution" has nothing to do with creation of life, only progression of life. If you want theories of possible ways life could have developed look into abiogenesis or something. The final aspect of this sentence simply solidifies a prime example of a fundamental gross understanding of evolution, science, and proof logic. Not only does evolution not have to do with "the Genesis account" (as if it was witnessed by someone... who wrote it down for a court case) it doesn't intend to "disprove" a myth of creation. Primarily because people being made out of sand and dirt by a big mighty "super friend" has never been REMOTELY PROVEN in the first place. It does not even have the position of being considered worth a valid argument worthy of an attempt to "disprove" it.



Genesis hasn't BEEN proven, so of course it can't be proven false. If anything it the entire story is so ridiculous anyone looking at it in a non-religious context would consider it nothing more than a child's storybook tale. Furthermore, since when did the Bible gain "infallible status" from the start? This sentence along makes me think that you consider the Bible itself an actual being that is not fallible until proven to be so; a sidelined deity in someone's pocket.

Finally, I see no part of this being a "political battle," nor do I see any proof of it being so just cause YOU stated it to be such. I'm not going to try to guess what you are talking about in regards to "dirty tactics on both sides" as that statement is so vague I'm at a loss to even know what you are referring to.

Really? Would you believe that there's dirty tactics practiced by creationists?

 

[Emoni]

Really? Would you believe that there's dirty tactics practiced by creationists?

Would you please be a bit more specific?

So far your posting strong generalizations that are unsupported with an explanation of what you are actually stating sprinkled with a few hot buzz words.

 

[bertiefink]

Uh... what is an "evolutionist?" Is this a new religious of some sort based around the theory of evolution? Should people who believe in the existence of gravity be dubbed "gravitationalists?"

This is particularly funny. According to a dictionary, one of it's definitions is one who embraces the doctrine of evolution. Does believing in evolution give one some sort of privilege in avoiding labels, terms, etc.? And I don't know if one who believes in gravity should be called a gravitationalist.

Further more "evolution" has nothing to do with creation of life, only progression of life. If you want theories of possible ways life could have developed look into abiogenesis or something.

Yes, I understand this. Now why even still, under this circumstance, do some, if you'll forgive the term "evolutionists", go on constants rants about the Genesis account, the Bible, ID, creationism, etc.?...Because it's a political battle.

The final aspect of this sentence simply solidifies a prime example of a fundamental gross understanding of evolution, science, and proof logic.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen this comment (not necessarily towards me). I'm beginning to think that certain posters are actually evolutionist google ads who automatically type in such comments when they see key words. I did happen to mention that I'm not a scientist. I merely posted my opinion from what I've seen on the subject from various debating on the subject. Truthfully, I think many are more interested in telling others how much they don't know, as opposed to actually informing.

Not only does evolution not have to do with "the Genesis account" (as if it was witnessed by someone... who wrote it down for a court case) it doesn't intend to "disprove" a myth of creation.

I think I did make reference to that already. Yes, I know, it doesn't attempt to "disprove" a [myth] of creation. There are a number of religions that hold to a creation belief. The "political" battle is really not against them. The Genesis account however is the target of much obvious angst. Not a [myth] of creation. This is why there does exist the extremists as referred to in another post. There are those who have designated Darwin as a banner of sorts targeting Biblical teaching. Now where you play in the equation, I have no idea.

Genesis hasn't BEEN proven, so of course it can't be proven false. If anything it the entire story is so ridiculous anyone looking at it in a non-religious context would consider it nothing more than a child's storybook tale. Furthermore, since when did the Bible gain "infallible status" from the start? This sentence along makes me think that you consider the Bible itself an actual being that is not fallible until proven to be so; a sidelined deity in someone's pocket.

What's the significance of the conclusion you're drawing from my comment? Yes, I believe the Bible to be infallible. From the comments you're making, my guess is that you don't...right?

Finally, I see no part of this being a "political battle," nor do I see any proof of it being so just cause YOU stated it to be such.

You don't see it as a political battle.....I do. Some things are just too simple to take any further I guess.

 

[Mycernius]

I think it's a fairly difficult situation because it really requires an understanding of science (biology). I myself know very little about science for one.

That is the point. In a science class you want to teach scioence, so children can understand this very subject. Creationism doesan't teach biology. All it is is a myth based version of how the universe came into existance. Therefore no science and it shouldn't betaught in a science class. Put it where it belongs, in a religious class.

It's a political war. As a Christian, I have to admit that there's probably a degree of dirty tactics from both sides (including pro-creationists) because it is a political battle. There's so many attempts at incriminating the other party that it's difficult to make proper judgment.

Only in the US, where your beliefs can be a large influence on your political career. Unfortunately the fundie christians in the US are trying to export their radical views to the rest of the world, much as Islamic fundies are doing.

When listening to actual scientists, there are experts in the field on both sides that put up very good arguments. Especially if you don't really understand completely what they are saying.

really? Could you name some of these so called experts on the creationist side? Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron. None of which hold any offical degree in science. Kents and Kens doctorates are both bogus.

I think it's apparent that evolutionists, although emphasize that evolution does not disprove the concept of a God or creator,

Plenty of "evolutionists" that are christian and reject Genesis. Evene the Vatican recognises evolution. It seems that the creationist don't weant to see the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Cognitive dissonace disorder in the extreme, especially in YECs.

seem intent on disproving the Genesis account of creation.

Genesis does that tself. Genesis 1 contradicts the order of creation to Genesis 2. Why should people try to discredit it whne it does it itself.

The battle is against fundamentalist Christians. Not Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Incorrect. there are just as many Islamic creationists out there trying to prove the qu'ranic version of creation is correct. Harun Hyaha is the most prominent, seeing he is sponsored indirectly by the Saudi government to continue his "research"

If Genesis can be proven false, this renders the Bible fallible. And thus, the arch enemy (fundamentalists) are defeated.

As I said Genesis does that itself. The bible is fallible in many respects, not just in genesis. I know a few christians who will happily admit this, but it doesn't affect there belief in god.

And naturally, many Christians who may not necessarily understand science, oppose evolution monopolizing the science class room that their kids may attend.

What monopolising? Creationism is not a science, it is a myth based idea. Do you think you want your children laerning about hindu creationism in a science calss? If creationism was to be taught in a science class their entire school life would be just covering the creationists ideas of hundreds of beliefs systems. 10 000 seperate religions in the world today, almost 36 000 different denominations/sects/cults of christianity. How do you choose which is the one to teach?

 

[Bellevance]

I think it's a fairly difficult situation because it really requires an understanding of science (biology). I myself know very little about science for one.

This is clear from what you have written. Unfortunately, in order to determine whether the doctrine of creationism belongs in a school science classroom, you need to know a lot more about science than you do. Otherwise, your comments betray your relative ignorance. I'm not trying to insult you, but you need to understand that evolution theory underlies ALL of modern biology, geology, anthropology, paleontology, and several other disciplines. It is bedrock science. For starters, just to get a glimpse of the ground your own mind needs to cover, please take a look at QualiaSoup's video, which Emoni has embedded, above in this thread.

I think it's apparent that evolutionists, although emphasize that evolution does not disprove the concept of a God or creator, seems intent on disproving Genesis account of creation.

This simply isn't true. It is not necessary to disprove a notion that has never been proven to be true in the first place. There are many creation myths--they are not factual; they are merely imaginary, poetic answers to questions that people could not answer any other way. All mainstream belief systems have them. They are stories that were invented in an age before the truth was knowable. They are metaphorical and grandiose. They are not science, and they never will become science, not until they can be tested and proven over and over and over in the way that scientific theories are and have been. And that's not going to happen.

 

[bertiefink]

That is the point. In a science class you want to teach scioence, so children can understand this very subject. Creationism doesan't teach biology. All it is is a myth based version of how the universe came into existance. Therefore no science and it shouldn't betaught in a science class. Put it where it belongs, in a religious class.
Only in the US, where your beliefs can be a large influence on your political career. Unfortunately the fundie christians in the US are trying to export their radical views to the rest of the world, much as Islamic fundies are doing.
really? Could you name some of these so called experts on the creationist side? Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron. None of which hold any offical degree in science. Kents and Kens doctorates are both bogus.
Plenty of "evolutionists" that are christian and reject Genesis. Evene the Vatican recognises evolution. It seems that the creationist don't weant to see the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Cognitive dissonace disorder in the extreme, especially in YECs.
Genesis does that tself. Genesis 1 contradicts the order of creation to Genesis 2. Why should people try to discredit it whne it does it itself.
Incorrect. there are just as many Islamic creationists out there trying to prove the qu'ranic version of creation is correct. Harun Hyaha is the most prominent, seeing he is sponsored indirectly by the Saudi government to continue his "research"
As I said Genesis does that itself. The bible is fallible in many respects, not just in genesis. I know a few christians who will happily admit this, but it doesn't affect there belief in god.
What monopolising? Creationism is not a science, it is a myth based idea. Do you think you want your children laerning about hindu creationism in a science calss? If creationism was to be taught in a science class their entire school life would be just covering the creationists ideas of hundreds of beliefs systems. 10 000 seperate religions in the world today, almost 36 000 different denominations/sects/cults of christianity. How do you choose which is the one to teach?

Personally, I'm not too worried about the teaching of evolution. Initially, I was expressing my opinion on why I think a number of Christians take issue.

As far as experts; Gerald Schroeder (not that I think this will do much good).

Incidentally, what ever gave you the idea that Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2? Well, if you're reading it like it's a contemporary instruction manual, or science book, I suppose I can understand. I'm also not too concerned over a few Christians who think the Bible is fallible (in reference to your friends).

This is clear from what you have written. Unfortunately, in order to determine whether the doctrine of creationism belongs in a school science classroom, you need to know a lot more about science than you do. Otherwise, your comments betray your relative ignorance. I'm not trying to insult you, but you need to understand that evolution theory underlies ALL of modern biology, geology, anthropology, paleontology, and several other disciplines. It is bedrock science. For starters, just to get a glimpse of the ground your own mind needs to cover, please take a look at QualiaSoup's video, which Emoni has embedded, above in this thread.



This simply isn't true. It is not necessary to disprove a notion that has never been proven to be true in the first place. There are many creation myths--they are not true; they are merely imaginary, poetic answers to questions that people could not answer any other way. All mainstream belief systems have them. They were invented in an age before the truth was knowable. They are metaphorical and grandiose. They are not science, and they never will become science, not until they can be tested and proven over and over and over in the way that scientific theories are and have been. And that's not going to happen.

So you not only claim expertise on science, but on religion as well.

 

[bertiefink]

My conclusion:

Intelligent Design and Creationism need it's place in public schools alongside the teaching of evolution. When scientists claim expertise (as I've seen many times before) on the subject of religion, spirituality, etc. there's something seriously wrong. Both sides need to be presented, so that each individual can come to their own conclusion.

Thank you. Class dismissed.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

So you not only claim expertise on science, but on religion as well.(quoting Bellevance)

I think you've hit on the root of the problem. There are too many people who are one-sided on the issue. Why would it surprise you that someone might be knowledgeable in both fields? I wouldn't claim to be an expert in either field, but I think I'm more well-informed on both subjects than the average lay person. I'm not religious, but I know a lot about different religions, their mythologies, doctrines and rituals. I'm not a scientist, but I try hard to understand the theories unpinning Science and their implications. Mycernius can say the same. I think people who understand both subjects agree that Creationism has no place in the Science classroom, because they understand what Religion is, they understand what Science is and they see that one can't masquerade as the other.

 

[Bellevance]

My conclusion:

Intelligent Design and Creationism need it's place in public schools alongside the teaching of evolution. When scientists claim expertise (as I've seen many times before) on the subject of religion, spirituality, etc. there's something seriously wrong. Both sides need to be presented, so that each individual can come to their own conclusion.

I know of no scientists, as scientists, who claim expertise on the subject of religion. That isn't their purpose or their concern. Their concern is to determine what may be tested and proven as operative, observable fact. If what scientists discover through rigorous methodical testing supports religious ideas, they will accept and stand by those ideas. If what they discover contradicts religious ideas, so be it.

But there is no place in the public schools for the study of religious mythology as if it could explain natural phenomena. It cannot. Aqua Lung, I'm sorry--and again I'm not trying to insult you--but your opinions here only illustrate your lack of education in the sciences. You owe it to yourself and to your children, if you have any, to do your best to learn much more about what science is and how science works before you can reasonably declare that untestable, unprovable supernatural beliefs should be examined as if they were on a par with science.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Intelligent Design and Creationism need it's place in public schools[/quote]

Agreed. That place is in the Religious Studies classroom, not the Science classroom.

alongside the teaching of evolution.

Depends what you mean by alongside. If you mean it in the general sense of "within the same curriculum", fine. If you mean it in the more literal sense of "at the same time, in the same classroom", I disagree. Creationism is not comparable to Evolution and shouldn't be taught as such.

When scientists claim expertise (as I've seen many times before) on the subject of religion, spirituality, etc. there's something seriously wrong.

I don't understand why this must be so. It's perfectly possible for an individual to have a broad knowledge in more than one field. Having said that, I'm not really aware of any scientists who do claim expertise in the field of religion and spirituality. Can you offer any examples?

Both sides need to be presented, so that each individual can come to their own conclusion.

It's not a matter of personal opinion, of individuals coming to their own conclusion. Evolution is a fact. Creationism is allegorical at best. People can believe what they like, but if they deny evolution and believe literally in creationism, then they are denying what Science tells us about reality. That's not to say we shouldn't teach children about Creationism. But it should be taught in Religious Studies lessons, alongside other religious doctrines.

Teaching creationism in science lessons is no different from teaching about the virgin birth in sex education lessons. Are we going to tell teenagers that they might get pregnant even if they don't have sex, just because that's what some religions believe? ☝

 

[Glenski]

When listening to actual scientists, there are experts in the field on both sides that put up very good arguments. Especially if you don't really understand completely what they are saying.

This quote is too funny to go unnoticed.

How can you even say that anyone's "expert argument" is good if you don't understand it in the first place?

I know you said you are weak in science, but you don't need it for the above. Sheesh.

 

[Emoni]

You know, I'd reply with a long post, but most of the important points shooting your argument in the foot have already been made by posters or accidentally by yourself without realizing it.

Maybe later when I have a little more time. I only have 5 minutes now, so I'll only respond with this.

Your "argument" exemplifies almost the very core of those who blindly support "creationism" in schools. You DO have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and apparently science from what you have posted. You have dubbed a BOOK infallible "just because you were told to" and are pulling "facts" out of the air to support an argument that honestly doesn't make sense if you think about it.

Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true. Sorry, but while no one knows exactly how the world works, it is certain that that fact holds true.

(If I have time later I can point out the specific parts of your post that I'm referring to with my statements.)

 

[bertiefink]

You know, I'd reply with a long post, but most of the important points shooting your argument in the foot have already been made by posters or accidentally by yourself without realizing it.
Maybe later when I have a little more time. I only have 5 minutes now, so I'll only respond with this.

That's okay, I'll do a long post. The points you're going to make, I probably have seen already. But go ahead when you have time.
Ideally, I think ID and Creationism should be included one way or another in public schools. How they do that, would be up to them (same class or separate class). That's just my opinion. On the other hand, suppressing anything related to the Bible has no effect on people becoming believers in Jesus Christ. In fact, it would appear that the opposite takes place. For instance, Russia made the attempt to suppress Christianity, and found it had an adverse effect. To this very day, Christianity in China is spreading in spite of it being illegal. The real believing Christian church is underground. Not their state run church. In spite of persecution, imprisonment, even torture, many are coming to Christ. Getting back on topic; again, ideally, I think ID and Creationism should be included. Realistically, maybe not. Maybe it shouldn't. To use a cliche; God works in mysterious ways. To apply scripture; His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. In other words; teaching evolution will not in any way effect the spreading of the Gospel. It may even help spread it. So, actually, this is where the shooting in the foot may very well apply. Yes, there's frustration on the part of many Christians in the U.S. Maybe we should gleam from the Christians in China who believe that communism in China is God's divine plan (for the moment) to bring many to Christ. I've heard this straight from a missionary in China that many actually hope China never becomes like the U.S., because their hardship has drawn them to a closer spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. However, I don't have children in school. So, I try to understand the concern many Christians have who have kids attending public schools.
The problem with many scientists, is that they refuse to believe that there is a spiritual realm. The Bible describes this as a blinding of sorts (blinded by science?). If it were common knowledge that the Earth is the Lord's, as stated in the Bible, there wouldn't, or shouldn't, be any problem looking at science from a creationist stand-point.
One of the problems many devout atheists have to face, in light of things like evolution vs. creationism, is the interruptions of the us vs. them philosophy (intellectuals vs. back wood hillbillies philosophy). The black and white viewpoint that only bible belt, backwoods, rednecks, the uneducated, etc. are the one's who believe in what they perceive as folk-lore called the Bible. The problem takes place when someone they highly respect becomes a Christian (Born-Again believer). This is something that happens in the spiritual realm, and can't be stooped. If this hasn't happened yet to any of you, it probably will at some point. Someone who you consider to be in your camp, too intelligent, etc. will become a believer. When God reveals Himself to someone, all the intellect from their peer clique becomes meaningless. There's always going to be those who are drawn to the Bible. And not always knowing why. I believe that there are a number of people who are of student age, who are interested in the creationist viewpoint as well. This being in spite of the fundamentalist version of science that absolutely insists it's position is above God's.

 

[Emoni]

I have a little bit of time, but I'll keep things concise rather than waste too much effort. While you wrote a "longer post" I'm honestly not sure what your point is. I'm not going to even jump into all the religious diatribe that you've made 90% of, as it is unsubstantiated; "When God reveals Himself to someone, all the intellect from their peer clique becomes meaningless." is lacking any evidence what-so-ever and has nothing to do with creationism being taught as science.

The ONLY relevant points that you have brought into the conversation are the oversimplification of this being the "elites vs. hillbillies" generalization and your feeling that Christianity is becoming oppressed in the U.S. and the dangerously vague blanket implication that without Christianity Russia and China = Bad. Those who modified the national anthem to include "under God," for the very reason of separating the U.S. from communist nations would love you. However, unvalidated statements like this based on opinion are extremely dangerous and in my own "opinion" get to the very core at the danger that religion can create in the us vs. them realm. Finally the "elite vs. hillbillies" argument is often used in a victim sense by creationist supporters to derail the argument, along with other statements that this is a battle between evolution and creationism. This is a situation of having something that is NOT SCIENCE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM being introduced into a SCIENCE CLASS. Sex education doesn't go next to the quadratic equation as a way to stimulate the mind in math class, and religion does NOT belong in a science class, period.

Consider watching this. I posted it on the thread below but it may fit here even more appropriately.


This is a proposal that I would consider. I don't know if you know of Dennett, but while this is a rather tongue and cheek presentation, I do think a "World Religion" class taught in the realm of a cultural history sense would be appropriate, if not for the very reason of teaching about other cultures and belief systems to promote understanding. However, I can assure you that this would almost certainly become a loophole for teaching and emphasize creationist belief in many schools unfortunately.

 

[Bellevance]

This is a situation of having something that is NOT SCIENCE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM being introduced into a SCIENCE CLASS.

That's it in a nutshell, really. Science classes are for the teaching of science. Creationism is not science. It has not been "discovered" and tested and proven valid by science. It does not and cannot submit to the rigorous methods of science. It has nothing to do with honest science. It has no part in a science curriculum.