Creationism in science classes

[Emoni]

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.

Honestly, yes that is it in a nutshell. It really can't be simplified down any further than this. Yet, constantly people keep coming back with a reply that shows they have either no idea what science is, or shows they maybe didn't read the statement. These end up with replies like, "But other alternatives must be considered." My reaction is usually a face palm.

 

[Frontman]

I think this argument has less to do with creation than it does to "who" did the creating.

Freezing water "creates" ice, a spark can "create" a fire. That the world and life itself was created in way or another is unquestionable. It's all cause and effect, but the point in question is what was the cause?

I am not religious, and I'm not a scientist. But like anyone else, I've asked myself how and why things happen. Science often seems as slippery a slope as religion, one man's fact is often another man's theory, so to speak.

One cannot deny that the creation/evolution debate is political. One also cannot deny that science itself is not a hotbed of politics. Some subjects are universally agreed to, while others are debated heatedly.

In the end, the fundamental question isn't "how", or even "who" did the creating. What I and many others would like to know is "why"?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

In the end, the fundamental question isn't "how", or even "who" did the creating. What I and many others would like to know is "why"?

What I would like to know is why so many people think there has to be a who or why. Let Science explain the how, and let that knowledge reach as many people as possible by keeping the science classroom for teaching Science.

 

[Bellevance]

Tsuyoiko writes: What I would like to know is why so many people think there has to be a who or why.

What I would like to know is why so many people are so desperate to cling to obviously fictional--mythical--answers to questions that we simply don't yet know the answers to. We may never be able to determine why the Universe and everything it contains are here, and of course we are free to fantasize about possible answers. But it helps no one to make up the answers and then insist not only that they are true but that other people should study and debate them.

Frontman writes: Science often seems as slippery a slope as religion, one man's fact is often another man's theory, so to speak.

Not at all. Frontman, do yourself a favor and watch QualiaSoup's video, embedded in this thread, above.

 

[Emoni]

I think this argument has less to do with creation than it does to "who" did the creating.
Freezing water "creates" ice, a spark can "create" a fire. That the world and life itself was created in way or another is unquestionable. It's all cause and effect, but the point in question is what was the cause?

Oh no... please please don't bring in the cousin of the "banana argument" into this... *face palm with cringe*

 

[ShadowSpirit]

Creationism is best suited as a topic in a world religions class and not as a standalone course, nor should it be disguised as a science.

 

[bertiefink]

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.

I'm not implying that Russia and China=bad at all. Both their respective governments have practiced religious persecution. Unfortunately, it still occurs today in China. This is fact, not opinion. Why would stating fact=danger?

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.

First off, no I'm not familiar with Dennett. I can see that he's using certain tactics himself in a gentle, subtle way that he believes that Rick Warren is doing. RW evidently published a fairly successful book. The opponents to any successful publication viewpoint will always work a counter. Dennett is a likely candidate because of his gentle demeanor. The method he seems to be using is highlighting certain comments, and creating suspicion. Hinting at, or implying 'danger' is another good tactic.

That being said, I'm posting my views on the new thread regarding 'religion'. I feel I can express my viewpoint more appropriately without veering off topic as I feel this subject runs into an inevitable dead end.

That being said, I'm posting my views on the new thread regarding 'religion'. I feel I can express my viewpoint more appropriately without veering off topic as I feel this subject runs into an inevitable dead end.

I want to correct my last comment. The subject itself is a good one. For myself, my viewpoints can be expressed better in the other thread.

 

[Yan]

Creationism is a very ridiculous "theory". It isn't a scientific theory so why should we teach it in science classes? Science is incompatible with religion. The religion has been invented by humans to controle the world. I have no respect for that. Creationism should be teached like in Quebec. There is a subject in my school called "Ethics and religious culture". We are currently learning creationism as "ﾆ暖ﾆ椎?ﾆ停?敞達ﾆ但" or "culture générale" (I don't know how to say in English) but we don't talk about it in science classes.