64% in US think creationism should be taught in school.

[Fox Mccloud]

Note that, in this belief, there is no conflict between religion and science at all. The problem starts when some people, who are unable to reflect over their own holy scriptures, finds out that science must be wrong and wish to make a new branch of science called Creationism.

The problem is that Creationism is not a scientific theory. It doesn't predict anything, it isn't testible, it can't be disproven. Therefore it conflicts with the definition of science and can't be thaught in a Biology class.

Ok, so everyone thought I was talking about Creationism. No, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the possibility that God made science, and made everything evolve, etc. It may not be testible, provable, but it's still a theory, an untestable unprovable theory, but that doesn't disprove God, and Religion and Science are not conflicting.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I didn't miss the point. I'm just trying to understand, why are you so eager to dismiss polytheistic religions, in favor of your monotheism? Do you have any proof their views are less valid then yours?

I'm not dismissing polytheism. I said nothing about it.

 

[Perfection]

Ok, so everyone thought I was talking about Creationism. No, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the possibility that God made science, and made everything evolve, etc. It may not be testible, provable, but it's still a theory, an untestable unprovable theory, but that doesn't disprove God, and Religion and Science are not conflicting.

Sure, but that thoery isn't scientific. When it's passed off as science as Intelligent Design tries to be. That's when I get angry.

 

[mdwh]

Ok, so everyone thought I was talking about Creationism. No, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the possibility that God made science, and made everything evolve, etc. It may not be testible, provable, but it's still a theory, an untestable unprovable theory, but that doesn't disprove God, and Religion and Science are not conflicting.

Well this thread is about creationism.

Last time I looked, science lessons didn't teach where the Universe came from (since we don't know that answer), so I don't see why we should give preference to religion and start talking about God. That's not science. Keep it to religion or philosophy lessons.

 

[Cheetah]

Ok, so everyone thought I was talking about Creationism. No, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the possibility that God made science, and made everything evolve, etc. It may not be testible, provable, but it's still a theory, an untestable unprovable theory, but that doesn't disprove God, and Religion and Science are not conflicting.

I was pretty sure I saw you using the word 'creationism', but no matter.

If God "made science", and made everything evolve in the way that evolution says they have, then what would be the need for an extra class? It would simply be for those who believe that God is behind it all to continue to believe that, and for those who believe there is no god to believe that things happened based on natural laws.

You just said that Religion and Science are not conflicting, so why not simply leave science-classes to science, and religious classes to religions?

 

[Kozmos]

What are you talking about?

Ah nevermind...too much effort to explain,just know it has amused me much.

May Pasta be on you.

 

[Speedo]

Ok, so everyone thought I was talking about Creationism. No, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the possibility that God made science, and made everything evolve, etc. It may not be testible, provable, but it's still a theory, an untestable unprovable theory, but that doesn't disprove God, and Religion and Science are not conflicting.

Excellent! What you're looking for is a philosophy class

 

[JohnRM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?incamp=article_popular

This is disturbing to me as a scientist. I mean evolution is the basis for understanding modern biology. It is a scientific fact and is not inconsistent with belief in a deity but only with the Old Testament Genesis view. If you believe everything in the OT is literal God given truth you haven’t read it. I know this has been done endlessly but the twist here is that even some secular evolution believers think Creationism should be taught alongside evolution for fairness. I strongly oppose this. I think religion should be taught in school if you want as Philosophy or Sociology but keep it out of my Science classes.

I am a Catholic Catechumen, and even I do not believe that Creationism should be taught is science class. However, you are wrong about one thing. Evolution is NOT scientific fact. It is probable that it is accurate, but it is not scientific fact.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Yes, they should teach creationism in science class, history in math class and litereture in gymnastics class.

 

[Taliesin]

When did you enter the catechumenate, John?

 

[newfangle]

I am a Catholic Catechumen, and even I do not believe that Creationism should be taught is science class. However, you are wrong about one thing. Evolution is NOT scientific fact. It is probable that it is accurate, but it is not scientific fact.

Just out of curiousity, what do you consider a scientific fact?

 

[Moss]

Just out of curiousity, what do you consider a scientific fact?

Well, there are theories and then there are laws

it's a scientific fact that if I drop my left ear, it will fall to the ground.

It's a theory that evolution exists. (and to my knowledge, there are different theories of evolution...or at least different theories of events...)

 

[mdwh]

Evolution is a fact *and* a theory: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Facts are observed things which we know happen. Theories are models which explain the facts. Confusingly, evolution can refer to both the observed facts, and the theories behind it.

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

 

[Atlas14]

Creationism is religiously motivated and is supported by very little if any scientific facts. Last time I checked public schools weren't allowed to teach God, nor imply he exists by teaching something. If they can get around this by saying a "Higher Being" instead of God, then this sucks even more. American education needs serious reforms if implementing of ID or Creationism in schools is even being considered. This is just sad.

 

[SuperSloth]

theres nothing wrong with learning something new. maybe crationism can be taught as part of a theology course or something. just dont try and push it as a scientific fact.

 

[amadeus]

I don't agree with having it instructed to students, but how does it hurt to acknowledge that other opinions exist?

 

[mdwh]

I don't agree with having it instructed to students, but how does it hurt to acknowledge that other opinions exist?

Well I don't mind a general brief mention that "There are some people out there who refuse to follow science", and then pointing out all the benefits that science gets us. But giving time over to actually teaching ID takes valuable time away from teaching science, which is what, unsurprisingly, science lessons should be for. Some people even suggest giving "equal time" to ID. Furthermore, if we teach one alternative, surely we should teaching them all - at which point huge amounts of time are wasted covering every opinion on the matter that anyone has ever had.

And why stop at evolution? "And some people think the world is supported on a turtle".

We already have lesson for teaching "What supernatural/religious things people around the world believe." Use it.

Another issue is not the time wasted, but how it is taught. I wouldn't mind ID being mentioned, taught that it is a conjecture - indeed, this would be a good thing, to help explain the difference between ideas, hypotheses and theories, and perhaps it would stop people growing up thinking that ID is a theory. That would be good.

The problem is people want it taught as a theory. And I hope it's clear why teaching people things that are fundamentally wrong about the *scientific method* (not just evolution) is a bad idea. Even if those students have no intention of learning about evolution or biology, they will grow up being completely confused about all science, because they think made up ideas are comparable to theories.

 

[silver 2039]

What the hell ever happened to seperation of Church and State!!!?????

 

[wit>trope]

All of the poll options were wrong for me, but I chose option 3 because that was closest kind of. I don't believe in evolution but I DO believe both should be taught for "fairness" ... so option 1 fits kind of too. But option 2 doesn't work because I don't think it's a case of not knowing for sure. Option 3 also doesn't work since I believe both should be taught ... I mean people should learn about everything, including false ideas that people have.

 

[IglooDame]

Option 4 for me as well.