Creation: Should it be taught in schools?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.flavort

they actually have creation scientist.

I am not refering to YEC

Creationism still doesn't have much evidence for it. Saying that something is too complex to be made "randomly" is not evidence.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.NearTheEnd

Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.

They're usually taught in literature classes though. Nobody is in science class explaining lightning bolts with Zeus.

A "Major World Religions" class should be required for everyone. I think it would help out a lot of ignorant people.

[QUOTE="NearTheEnd"]

They're usually taught in literature classes though. Nobody is in science class explaining lightning bolts with Zeus.

A "Major World Religions" class should be required for everyone. I think it would help out a lot of ignorant people.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not arguing the class....just stating that religions are taught in public schools. Which is a fact...doesn't matter the class.

Your idea may at least help with tolerance of others though....

My point was that the current teaching of greek religions is different from theteaching of creationism in schools because the greek religions are not presented as being a viable alternative to science.

Have a science class and a religion class.. no reason to seperate them. And no reason to read out the Qu'Ran in a catholic country either. If mostly everyone is Christian in the area, focus on that religion but don't leave the other ones out.

That's how it works in Europe, and it works wonders.

Vfanek

I don't know...I've seen some misinformation and ignorance from European posters.

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.DeeJayInphinity

they actually have creation scientist.

I am not refering to YEC

Creationism still doesn't have much evidence for it. Saying that something is too complex to be made "randomly" is not evidence.

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

Right, the class was a separate point.

My point was that the current teaching of greek religions is different from theteaching of creationism in schools because the greek religions are not presented as being a viable alternative to science.

NearTheEnd

Yes...I'm not arguing that. Just pointing it out.;)

[QUOTE="Vfanek"]

Have a science class and a religion class.. no reason to seperate them. And no reason to read out the Qu'Ran in a catholic country either. If mostly everyone is Christian in the area, focus on that religion but don't leave the other ones out.

That's how it works in Europe, and it works wonders.

LJS9502_basic

I don't know...I've seen some misinformation and ignorance from European posters.

I dont think we should teach religions as an alternative to science, but to teach it so people aren't so intolerant of other religionsmig_killer2

not all creationist are religious

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Vfanek"]

Have a science class and a religion class.. no reason to seperate them. And no reason to read out the Qu'Ran in a catholic country either. If mostly everyone is Christian in the area, focus on that religion but don't leave the other ones out.

That's how it works in Europe, and it works wonders.

Darthmatt

I don't know...I've seen some misinformation and ignorance from European posters.

OH SNAP!

Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"Viviath

you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God

[QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"flavort

you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God

Oh I did not know. thank you for informing me. Then my post is pointed towards the young earth relious creationists.

[QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"flavort

you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God

I'm actuallyinterested in this.

How does one present a creationist idea without a god?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.flavort

they actually have creation scientist.

I am not refering to YEC

Creationism still doesn't have much evidence for it. Saying that something is too complex to be made "randomly" is not evidence.

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

flavort

Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.

Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.

Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

[QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"NearTheEnd

you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God

I'm actuallyinterested in this.

How does one present a creationist idea without a god?

Should creation be taught along side evolution in schools?

I say yes, it definitely should.

Slepanandiaz

only in private catholic or christian schools

[QUOTE="flavort"]

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

DeeJayInphinity

Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.

Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.

Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

Actually...to be fair there are holes in the evolutionary process....many transistional fossils are missing. Evolution is simply the best quess to tie everything together.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"]

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

LJS9502_basic

Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.

Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.

Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

Actually...to be fair there are holes in the evolutionary process....many transistional fossils are missing. Evolution is simple the best quess to tie everything together.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"]

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

LJS9502_basic

Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.

Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.

Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

Actually...to be fair there are holes in the evolutionary process....many transistional fossils are missing. Evolution is simply the best quess to tie everything together.

Yes, I know that. It's the best we have right now and as soon as something better comes along, evolution will be phased out. That hasn't happened, yet.

that's really a small hole compared to creationism. creationism has some gigantic gaping holes. these holes are so big, you can fly an apache helicopter through them. mig_killer2

I'm only referring to one theory here....so that's comparing apples and oranges. Though I'd have to have some specifics to address...and not your opinion.;)

I think they could at least mention that some people believe that a god created the world, but they really don't hve to flesh it out any more than that.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"] that's really a small hole compared to creationism. creationism has some gigantic gaping holes. these holes are so big, you can fly an apache helicopter through them. LJS9502_basic

I'm only referring to one theory here....so that's comparing apples and oranges. Though I'd have to have some specifics to address...and not your opinion.;)

No!

I think they could at least mention that some people believe that a god created the world, but they really don't hve to flesh it out any more than that.

Bill900

They should just say it's possible that the universe was created by a higher power but that there's very little evidence for it. Next lesson..

[QUOTE="flavort"]

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

DeeJayInphinity

Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.

Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.

Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"] that's really a small hole compared to creationism. creationism has some gigantic gaping holes. these holes are so big, you can fly an apache helicopter through them. mig_killer2

I'm only referring to one theory here....so that's comparing apples and oranges. Though I'd have to have some specifics to address...and not your opinion.;)

Creationism doesn't contradict the age of the earth.:|

Science can co-exist with a good fit if you actually understand the two.

No.

Next question.

[QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"NearTheEnd

you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God

I'm actuallyinterested in this.

How does one present a creationist idea without a god?

it is not out to prove God. It is a scientific look into other optionsof thecreation of the universe and all things in it.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"] that's really a small hole compared to creationism. creationism has some gigantic gaping holes. these holes are so big, you can fly an apache helicopter through them. LJS9502_basic

I'm only referring to one theory here....so that's comparing apples and oranges. Though I'd have to have some specifics to address...and not your opinion.;)

Creationism doesn't contradict the age of the earth.:|

Science can co-exist with a good fit if you actually understand the two.

Yep, I think it should, and it is here in the Netherlands!0757691

Then you are probably going to a Christelijke School because I never was taught creationism...

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"]

that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.

flavort

Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.

Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.

Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I'm not dead set on scientists being the final answer. I know they can be wrong and I'm not afraid of taking out evolution once there's enough proof against it

[QUOTE="Bill900"]

I think they could at least mention that some people believe that a god created the world, but they really don't hve to flesh it out any more than that.

DeeJayInphinity

They should just say it's possible that the universe was created by a higher power but that there's very little evidence for it. Next lesson..

Very little evidence? Dude, there's NO real evidence that would support the possibility of a "higher power" creating the universe. Oh, and I doubt the theory of evolution will ever be simply "phased out" as you say. There is just WAY to much evidence that supports the theory to dismiss.

are we talking about the idea that god created the earth in 6 days, or are we talking about some other creation idea?mig_killer2

Six days does not actually mean six days of 24 hours....it's symbolic. Why does everyone want to take the OT literally.:|

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]

[QUOTE="Vampyronight"]Yes- I'm not saying do a 3-week lesson on it, but if you're going to teach evolution (which has its own gaping holes), you should at least provide an alternate theory. Take 20 minutes in a class and do a small rebuttal used by the creationists and call it a day.Vampyronight

It's not science so keep it away from the science classes.

Well until Evolution is proven, it's just a theory as well. Squashing alternate theories for something that isn't proven and has its own flaws does nothing to better a child's education.

Creationism is not a theory.

And a scientific theory, which evolution is, holds much more weight than you think.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]are we talking about the idea that god created the earth in 6 days, or are we talking about some other creation idea?LJS9502_basic

Six days does not actually mean six days of 24 hours....it's symbolic. Why does everyone want to take the OT literally.:|

Yes. I think it is important for people to understand the different belief systems of the world, in order to better understand others. rimnet00

We have History/Social Studies for that.

yes they should, and Middle Earth political science to

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Bill900"]

I think they could at least mention that some people believe that a god created the world, but they really don't hve to flesh it out any more than that.

agilefalcon16

They should just say it's possible that the universe was created by a higher power but that there's very little evidence for it. Next lesson..

Very little evidence? Dude, there's NO real evidence that would support the possibility of a "higher power" creating the universe. Oh, and I doubt the theory of evolution will ever be simply "phased out" as you say. There is just WAY to much evidence that supports the theory to dismiss.

I'm just trying to be modest. Nothing in science if safe from the scrutiny of other scientists. If somebody can come up with enough evidence against evolution, then it's gone. I don't know if it will ever happen, and I'm not saying it will.

[QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"flavort

you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God

I'm actuallyinterested in this.

How does one present a creationist idea without a god?

it is not out to prove God. It is a scientific look into other optionsof thecreation of the universe and all things in it.

It was created with the mindset: Hey, this book gives a conclusion, lets find a evidence supporting it.

Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, so it should not be anywhere near a science class. If you want to teach it in some sort of history teaching class, fine, but even then its a waste of time since there are more omportant things to learn.

[QUOTE="agilefalcon16"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Bill900"]

I think they could at least mention that some people believe that a god created the world, but they really don't hve to flesh it out any more than that.

DeeJayInphinity

They should just say it's possible that the universe was created by a higher power but that there's very little evidence for it. Next lesson..

Very little evidence? Dude, there's NO real evidence that would support the possibility of a "higher power" creating the universe. Oh, and I doubt the theory of evolution will ever be simply "phased out" as you say. There is just WAY to much evidence that supports the theory to dismiss.

I'm just trying to be modest. Nothing in science if safe from the scrutiny of other scientists. If somebody can come up with enough evidence against evolution, then it's gone. I don't know if it will ever happen, and I'm not saying it will.

It's unlikely that it will happen, since some scientists agree that we have more evidence to prove the theory of evolution than we have to prove the theory of gravity.

+1

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]are we talking about the idea that god created the earth in 6 days, or are we talking about some other creation idea?LJS9502_basic

Six days does not actually mean six days of 24 hours....it's symbolic. Why does everyone want to take the OT literally.:|

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="agilefalcon16"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Bill900"]

I think they could at least mention that some people believe that a god created the world, but they really don't hve to flesh it out any more than that.

The_Ish

They should just say it's possible that the universe was created by a higher power but that there's very little evidence for it. Next lesson..

Very little evidence? Dude, there's NO real evidence that would support the possibility of a "higher power" creating the universe. Oh, and I doubt the theory of evolution will ever be simply "phased out" as you say. There is just WAY to much evidence that supports the theory to dismiss.

I'm just trying to be modest. Nothing in science if safe from the scrutiny of other scientists. If somebody can come up with enough evidence against evolution, then it's gone. I don't know if it will ever happen, and I'm not saying it will.

It's unlikely that it will happen, since some scientists agree that we have more evidence to prove the theory of evolution than we have to prove the theory of gravity.