[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"] [QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]I see. In the broadest sense of creation, you would be correct at some point. However I'm guessing you didn't mean creationism in the sense that "an unidentified deity created the universe and how it behaves in order for us to evolve." If however you wish to teach creationism, you are changing the scope of science from strictly dealing with natural phenomenon to what is supernatural. You must then allow the teaching of astrology, alchemy, and occultisms. You must also present creationism from the perspective of every religion. This will allow the students to have all of the theories about the origins of life that man has developed, right? My next question is "Why is creation a legitimate alternative?" Sure, logic dictates that we either arrived by scientific determinism or that something created the universe, perhaps even intended for evolution to result in us, but is this a worthy alternative to the only scientific theory on the origins of life? Is it testable? Does it have evidence against the evolutionary process?CptJSparrow
Astrology, alchemy, and occultism do not deal with the origins of life. Even if they are on the same level as far as science goes, they are irrelevant to the teachings of origins.
Creationism does not seek to prove a specific creator. No interpretation would need be taught.
It is, but I have to go. I'll be back.
You misunderstood the reason why I stated astrology, alchemy, and occultism. I said you would have to change the definition of science to dealing with the supernatural in order to be able to teach creationism. Naturally, science would then include these topics. I did not say these would now be included in the hypothetical creationism classroom.
I didn't say that creationism sought to prove a specific creator, though it isn't exactly a secret which hypothetical creator you feel that you are coming closer to understanding by researching creationists' claims. My point in teaching every different interpretation of creationism is the same concept as (1) teaching the different theories about evolution, (2) teaching creationism and evolution as alternatives to each other--using this logic, and we have to teach the varying theories of creationism. Furthermore, the court rulings against creation science and intelligent design have all shown that it is a carbon copy of religion science that has undergone "Search & Replace" on Microsoft Word in order to remove all of the words that clearly suggest its biblical origins.Oh. Well, creationism does not have to go into the supernatural, at least up until a point.
I suppose not. There are only a few interpretations to creationism that I know of: Young-Earth Creationism, which suggests that the Earth is young, Old-Earth creationism, which follows the normal methods of carbon dating, but still denies evolution, and theistic evolution, which is evolution after God created life, though I prefer the term "bio Logos". I do not see much problem in teaching one or all of these in a ****oom.
As for court rulings, I don't know much about those.
Most of the courts found it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, though that doesn't make any sense at all. Congress wasn't the ones making it happen. I don't see a problem with them being taught in, say, Comparative Religion, but definitely not in science ****Unconstitutional?!?!?! Whaaaa?!
Oh well. It doesn't make any sense to me either, especially since many other countries teach it, but whatever.
I don't see anything wrong with it being taught in science **** especially since many of the greatest scientific contributors (Newton, Galileo, hell, even Darwin) were creationists.
Log in to comment