should creation science be taught in public schools...

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Moi
My point is that a world devoid of mentioning religion is as absurd as one in which anyone who believes they are being discriminated against can stop things.

If you teach evolution, teach about the alternate theories. It takes more than a few lessons in school to undermine the fundamental relgious/nonreligious beliefs of individuals.

I agree that schools should teach alternative theories about the creation of the world and the creation of man (these theories being so important in U.S. and world cultures), but it seems that a science class would be the wrong place to teach these. Science relies on the scientific method, and its seems inappropriate to expose kids in science class to religion at all (since it is based on faith - not the scientific method). Perhaps discussion of alternative theories should take place in a World social studies class or something like that.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Moi
My point is that a world devoid of mentioning religion is as absurd as one in which anyone who believes they are being discriminated against can stop things.

If you teach evolution, teach about the alternate theories. It takes more than a few lessons in school to undermine the fundamental relgious/nonreligious beliefs of individuals.

Huh? In only an absurd world can a victim of descrimination right the wrongs against them? Well, this is quite an absurd world then. I work in a Law Library full of examples.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I think I agree with this, but if there are(and there seem to be) alot of people who don't believe in Evolution and who believe strongly in Creationism then it at least deserves a mention.

Let's teach our kids how to get along with others and be free, independednt thinkers who value life and nature and let themselves decide how the world was created! As if any of us can be positive about this....

I tend to disagree with it for the same reasons and also for the same reason I disagree with the man trying to have 'under God' removed from the pledge. In my opinion, teaching of the existence of the idea of 'creationism' is no more an establishment of religion than having 'under God' in the pledge is an establishment.

But I threw it out there as an argument because it seems the contemporary interpretation of the 1st Ammendment by many judges has been leaning in the direction that this sort of thing is in fact a separation violation.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Reilly
I agree that schools should teach alternative theories about the creation of the world and the creation of man (these theories being so important in U.S. and world cultures), but it seems that a science class would be the wrong place to teach these. Science relies on the scientific method, and its seems inappropriate to expose kids in science class to religion at all (since it is based on faith - not the scientific method). Perhaps discussion of alternative theories should take place in a World social studies class or something like that.

Agreed that alternate theories are not "scientific"; however, it seems funny to me that science is considered absolute.

The one answer that no one who backs the evolution theory seems to be able to come up with is where everything started. Surely a leap of faith exists, even in so-called science, that things began somewhere, somehow- perhaps, by someone.

It's not concrete and knowable through scientific means...

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Reilly
I agree that schools should teach alternative theories about the creation of the world and the creation of man (these theories being so important in U.S. and world cultures), but it seems that a science class would be the wrong place to teach these. Science relies on the scientific method, and its seems inappropriate to expose kids in science class to religion at all (since it is based on faith - not the scientific method). Perhaps discussion of alternative theories should take place in a World social studies class or something like that.

Agreed. Perhaps World Religions should be a class in public schools in a society thta becomes more global everyday.

edit: One of my favorite classes in high school was Asian Studies, which covered many religions--Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.

I got a "D" but not for lack of interest in the material, it was lack of interest in the teacher(who I couldn't stand) coupled with the fact that I had already been accepted to college. Did I mention I love to play frisbee on sunny days?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Huh? In only an absurd world can a victim of descrimination right the wrongs against them? Well, this is quite an absurd world then. I work in a Law Library full of examples.

Let me refresh what I wrote:

My point is that a world devoid of mentioning religion is as absurd as one in which anyone who believes they are being discriminated against can stop things.


Anyone who believes they are being discriminated against...not the same as someone who has been discriminated against. I do think that people who are discriminated against should have redress. However, not everyone who believes they are has been nor do they deserve redress.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Moi
Agreed that alternate theories are not "scientific"; however, it seems funny to me that science is considered absolute.

The one answer that no one who backs the evolution theory seems to be able to come up with is where everything started. Surely a leap of faith exists, even in so-called science, that things began somewhere, somehow- perhaps, by someone.

It's not concrete and knowable through scientific means...

No one thinks that science is absolute (in the sense that current science is absolutely right), but scientific theories are arrived at through the scientific method - that, in my humble opinion, is the foundation of all science. Those things that science is unable to advise on (such as the origin of all matter) won't be addressed in a high school science class. I am sure that there are many scientists who believe in an ultimate creator, but those are not scientific beliefs.

However, to the extent that cultures/ religions have beliefs about these matters, I think they are fair game for discussion in another forum (i.e., social studies).

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Moi
The one answer that no one who backs the evolution theory seems to be able to come up with is where everything started.

Well, I think most of them would probably say God.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Moi
Agreed that alternate theories are not "scientific"; however, it seems funny to me that science is considered absolute.

The one answer that no one who backs the evolution theory seems to be able to come up with is where everything started. Surely a leap of faith exists, even in so-called science, that things began somewhere, somehow- perhaps, by someone.

It's not concrete and knowable through scientific means...

Having seen many lives saved by modern medicine I have to say I believe strongly in the power of science. But I think any good scientist would not discard any theory that he couldn't disprove.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Reilly
No one thinks that science is absolute (in the sense that current science is absolutely right), but scientific theories are arrived at through the scientific method - that, in my humble opinion, is the foundation of all science. Those things that science is unable to advise on (such as the origin of all matter) won't be addressed in a high school science class. I am sure that there are many scientists who believe in an ultimate creator, but those are not scientific beliefs.

However, to the extent that cultures/ religions have beliefs about these matters, I think they are fair game for discussion in another forum (i.e., social studies).

Agreed.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by deciophobic
ugh...i need reasons for them not to teach it for a paper i'm writing...but thanks anyway.

tell me about your paper - what class, what grade if high school - year if college, and what the teacher/professor has said.