how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

[blu]

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.

 

[AllieBaba]

Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.

Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?

 

[uscitizen]

As long as they taught science and not religion it would be fine with me.

Keep your religion anf your job seperate, unless religion is your job.

 

[AllieBaba]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3My4MHr51c&feature=related[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

Puke's hitting the substances again.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[JBeukema]

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.

 

[blu]

Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.

Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?

yea I am pretty sure I said that if you keep it separate its fine with me

 

[blu]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

there is no room for myths in science instruction

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

In a science class and a Biology class there is a reason, unless a school district allows creationism to be taught.

But my question to the OP is how would you feel if an atheist taught your children about Science? Or a person that so firmly believes science has all the answers as to be a form of religion?

 

[del]

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.

 

[blu]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

In a science class and a Biology class there is a reason, unless a school district allows creationism to be taught.

But my question to the OP is how would you feel if an atheist taught your children about Science? Or a person that so firmly believes science has all the answers as to be a form of religion?

as I said in the first post, as long as the religion is kept separate I really don't care. you could believe in whatever religion you want as long as you don't replace actual science with it.

the linked story dealt with teachers who were teaching creationism over biology int heir classrooms due to their personal beliefs. that is completely unacceptable.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists. And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.

A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'. Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.

It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.

 

[blu]

I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists. And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.

A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'. Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.

It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.

I would love to here this explained.....

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists. And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.

A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'. Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.

It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.

I would love to here this explained.....

Well I must be getting older than I thought because I thought I did explain it.

If a teacher presumes to teach his/her students that there is no such thing as a Creator or Intelligent Designer, he/she is not teaching science but is teaching religion. And teaching it badly at that. As science. Just won't fly.

I don't care what the teacher's personal beliefs are because they are irrelevent. If creationism or intelligent design has no place in science class, then neither does denial of creationism or intelligent design have a place in science class.

 

[blu]

I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists. And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.

A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'. Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.

It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.

I would love to here this explained.....

Well I must be getting older than I thought because I thought I did explain it.

If a teacher presumes to teach his/her students that there is no such thing as a Creator or Intelligent Designer, he/she is not teaching science but is teaching religion. And teaching it badly at that. As science. Just won't fly.

I don't care what the teacher's personal beliefs are because they are irrelevent. If creationism or intelligent design has no place in science class, then neither does denial of creationism or intelligent design have a place in science class.

you are using really faulty arguments here. science is based on what can be proven and disproven and as implied by faith god or the role of a supernatural being can never be proven or disproven.

disproving creationism through science is really easy though without having to worry about what a god did or didnt do... examples:

1) creationism requires a earth of only 6k years old... we can see objects millions of light years away
2) the text that describes creationism says that the moon provides ligt which is provably false
3) the same text bred the flat earth theory which we know is false
4) creationism (6k years) also cannot explain even basic geography and natural structures that would require millions of years to develop (e.g. grand canyon)

creationism has no room in science classes period, its simply another creation myth that should be taught with all the others

 

[Foxfyre]

To Blu:

The criteria for science is that any hypothesis must be falsifiable.

There is no way to falsify the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer, therefore it is outside the realm of science to evaluate or teach as science either pro or con.

1. A tiny percentage of creationists believe the Earth is 6k or so years old. I have never believed that. I have never been taught that by any religious mentor. I have never had a science teacher who believed that and I have had at least one who was an ordained minister. I am a devout Creationist and I have had no requirement to believe anything other than what is considered to be scientific criteria. I have taught classes in which one or two students believed the literal translation of scripture. All the teacher has to do in such a case is that the students' beliefs are fine. And the student is allowed to believe that the scientific theories about the age of the Earth and the Universe are wrong. But the student will have to pass the test just the same.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Creationism requires a 6k year old Earth.

2. There are two creation stories in Genesis back to back in Chapters 1 and 2. The first Creation story--the one most often taught--was one of the most recent manuscripts included in the "Old Testament" and was intended to be a metaphorical theological statement affirming that all that exists does so at the command of God. It was not written by men trained in science but by devout men who looked to God for all they have ever been or will be. The second creation story is one of the oldest manuscripts in the "Old Testament' and taught an anthropological methaporical description of how sin came into the world and spoiled God's perfect creation. Netiher were ever intended to be taken literally.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Creationism requires a literal translation of the opening chapters of Genesis.

3. You are sadly mistaken if you think that text bred the flat Earth theory or even dealt with the physical structure of the Earth. What bred the flat Earth theory was visual perception and inability to see the contour of the Earth until Columbus figured it out.

4. Even science cannot PROVE how anything actually came into being and theories and concepts are constantly changing as we learn more and more. What was settled science ten years ago or a hundred years ago often no longer is. For you to condemn Creationism based on your erroneous interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures doesn't make you a scientist. It does make you a lousy Bible student.

 

[AllieBaba]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

there is no room for myths in science instruction

Really?

Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".

 

[Big Black Dog]

What would Jesus do?