• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

No, it should not. There is no empirical evidence to back it up, ergo it is not a scientific theory and has no place in a science class. I have no issues with it being taught in a class on religion though.
 
Peter, please read this:

Biology is the study of life. What we have discovered to be true after experiment after experiment after experiment. In America, that's what we classify as Biology. Obviously your biology class is different, which isn't a bad thing, but arguing that yours is the better system won't get much accomplished here. I mean, just look at everyone's posts so far. See what I'm saying?

I do agree with you that it is a very good thing to be more knowledgeable about different religions and different theories. I think an entire year-long class should be devoted to that kind of study so that students are exposed to even more information than your biology class. People may not agree with most, or all of the religions, but at least they will obtain a better understanding for different cultures' beliefs.

In the end most people agree with you about being more knowledgeable, they just don't understand how religion fits into a biology class. And what does it matter if it isn't in a biology class? Your main argument, that people should be educated about everything, is still being supported.
 
Sure...give Creationism equal time...just make sure every version from every religion gets equal time.
 
I'm glad there are people here who can argue rationally.

It's not a big deal, but I do think they should take time in Biology class to discuss the viewpoints when the discussion is about life's origins (that would seem logical to me...) and I really don't understand why there is such a fuss about it. I guess you are scared that your sons and daughters will come home Christians or Buddhists or something.

Not everybody is going to believe in Evolution and you might as well open the discussion. Classrooms are for learning, after all. I guess Swedes will always see Americans as being a little prudish though. I don't see the big deal with opening up education to include what all the students might believe.







Peter, please read this:

Biology is the study of life. What we have discovered to be true after experiment after experiment after experiment. In America, that's what we classify as Biology. Obviously your biology class is different, which isn't a bad thing, but arguing that yours is the better system won't get much accomplished here. I mean, just look at everyone's posts so far. See what I'm saying?

I do agree with you that it is a very good thing to be more knowledgeable about different religions and different theories. I think an entire year-long class should be devoted to that kind of study so that students are exposed to even more information than your biology class. People may not agree with most, or all of the religions, but at least they will obtain a better understanding for different cultures' beliefs.

In the end most people agree with you about being more knowledgeable, they just don't understand how religion fits into a biology class. And what does it matter if it isn't in a biology class? Your main argument, that people should be educated about everything, is still being supported.
 
I'm glad there are people here who can argue rationally.

It's not a big deal, but I do think they should take time in Biology class to discuss the viewpoints when the discussion is about life's origins (that would seem logical to me...) and I really don't understand why there is such a fuss about it. I guess you are scared that your sons and daughters will come home Christians or Buddhists or something.

Not everybody is going to believe in Evolution and you might as well open the discussion. Classrooms are for learning, after all. I guess Swedes will always see Americans as being a little prudish though. I don't see the big deal with opening up education to include what all the students might believe.

Because there is no evidence for creationism...
 
I stopped responding to you after this immature post, sorry.

I don't care about their imaginary daddy in the sky. Their beliefs are not, necessarily, worthy of my respect. Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't mean it is right.

In science classes, we should teach how to argue against (the BS idea) of Creationism. It would be a VERY SHORT class and the lecture would consist of one word:

"EVIDENCE"
 
I stopped responding to you after this immature post, sorry.

Then who is the one not encouraging discussion?

When it comes to science classes, there is no discussion. Evolution has mounds of evidence. Creationism ... doesn't.
 
I'm glad there are people here who can argue rationally.

It's not a big deal, but I do think they should take time in Biology class to discuss the viewpoints when the discussion is about life's origins (that would seem logical to me...) and I really don't understand why there is such a fuss about it. I guess you are scared that your sons and daughters will come home Christians or Buddhists or something.

Not everybody is going to believe in Evolution and you might as well open the discussion. Classrooms are for learning, after all. I guess Swedes will always see Americans as being a little prudish though. I don't see the big deal with opening up education to include what all the students might believe.

Sure regarding life's origins this should be said:

"We do not know how life started, there are many hypothesis ranging from panspermia to creationism; however these hypothesis are so far completely untestable, so cannot fall under the umbrella of scientific knowledge. How life came to be has absolutely zero to do with our studies of evolution, so lets move on to the next chapter in our books and start taking an in depth look at evolution and the processes by which it works. Evolution has withstood 150 years of predictions and testing and has been subject to intense scrutiny via the scientific method and as such falls firmly into the realm of scientific knowledge"
 
Last edited:
I went to high school in Sweden, a very secular society that is maybe 3% Christian.

It is also very liberal, the tax rate for example is like 60% and almost all social services are provided like universal healthcare etc.


Even in Sweden, in Biology class, Creationism was given equal time and treatment to Evolution. We even learned about Panspermia (that life may have originated on other planets and was brought here). Many theories.

The point was not to endorse religion, but to educate us in a number of viewpoints. The viewpoints are out there, so why not learn them?

My question is... the USA is much more religious than Sweden.... so why is it so taboo to speak of religion or even mention it in US schools??
We're a very religious country that was smart enough to create ourselves as a completely secular country in terms of endorsing religion. If you want creationism taught in science class their gonna have to actually find some science to back up their claims. Til then send your kids to Sunday school and indoctrinate them the old fashioned way.
 
If you say that millions of people's viewpoints don't deserve your respect and start being condescending toward them, then you're pretty much saying you're entering the discussion with a closed mind. Then what is the point of me arguing with you, if your mind is already closed?

I might be right or I might be wrong, but I do believe in open discussions.


Then who is the one not encouraging discussion?

When it comes to science classes, there is no discussion. Evolution has mounds of evidence. Creationism ... doesn't.
 
I'm glad there are people here who can argue rationally.

It's not a big deal, but I do think they should take time in Biology class to discuss the viewpoints when the discussion is about life's origins (that would seem logical to me...) and I really don't understand why there is such a fuss about it. I guess you are scared that your sons and daughters will come home Christians or Buddhists or something.

Not everybody is going to believe in Evolution and you might as well open the discussion. Classrooms are for learning, after all. I guess Swedes will always see Americans as being a little prudish though. I don't see the big deal with opening up education to include what all the students might believe.

Because, strictly speaking, those aren't topics covered by the science of biology. Which is what the American classes solely teach. Evolution is part of the science of biology, so it is part of the curriculum.

I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers haha. If I was afraid of that I certainly wouldn't support the extensive learning of other religions in one class dedicated to that topic. That seems much more in-depth and informative than mixing it in with all of the curriculum of a biology class. Of course, you may not have been targeting me specifically, but if that was the case for other posters here as well then why have they also posted that they support the learning of other religions, just not in a biology class? There will always be those kinds of people, though, but what I'm saying is that isn't the reason why Americans don't teach religion in biology class.

And there is nothing wrong with opening discussions. But would you talk about war and history in a mathematics class? Seems a little bit silly, doesn't it? I mean, if you're going to talk about history and war instead of calculus, why bother having a calculus class? There's just a time and place for everything, and apparently Americans feel that religion should not be talked about in biology because it isn't a traditional science. Open a whole class dedicated to it, in addition to what every student learns in his/her history classes, and you'll end up with some very educated students on world religions. And biology :mrgreen:
 
Yes I understand the separation between church and state. Sweden does not really have that written up in the same way, so that explains the legal difference.

Ironically, Sweden...even though it is so secular... we wish each other "Merry Christmas" this time of year and not "Happy Holidays."

We're a very religious country that was smart enough to create ourselves as a completely secular country in terms of endorsing religion. If you want creationism taught in science class their gonna have to actually find some science to back up their claims. Til then send your kids to Sunday school and indoctrinate them the old fashioned way.
 
I'm glad there are people here who can argue rationally.

It's not a big deal, but I do think they should take time in Biology class to discuss the viewpoints when the discussion is about life's origins (that would seem logical to me...) and I really don't understand why there is such a fuss about it. I guess you are scared that your sons and daughters will come home Christians or Buddhists or something.

Not everybody is going to believe in Evolution and you might as well open the discussion. Classrooms are for learning, after all. I guess Swedes will always see Americans as being a little prudish though. I don't see the big deal with opening up education to include what all the students might believe.
We don't teach alternatives to the theory of evolution for the same reason we don't teach alternatives to the theory of gravity, there are no scientifically valid options other than the one. You can argue that God is pulling everything down to earth and that gravity is just blasphemy spread around by satan, but we shouldn't have to teach that nonsense to kids in public schools. The same goes for creationism. Evolution has been backed up by thousands of peer reviewed articles and experiments and findings, creationism has a few fast talking preachers and a handful of failed scientists that have been laughed at every corner for the crazy ideas they come up with.
 
Ironically, Sweden...even though it is so secular... we wish each other "Merry Christmas" this time of year and not "Happy Holidays."
So do most people here. Big stores and companies say happy holidays just to be more inclusive (which shouldn't be viewed in such a negative light as it usually is) but most people say merry Christmas. Hell, I say it and I'm an atheist. I've also never heard anyone actually get annoyed by telling them merry christmas. All of that crap is manufactured outrage.
 
Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, you know. Had you taken my high school Biology class, you would know that ... :)

That is to say, you can believe in God and also believe in Evolution.

As said, we did learn about Evolution and much of the supporting evidence, and obviously that it is the theory that is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community. But we did not skip over the "origin of life" component. We learned some of the then-current secular theories (which have since been disproved, I believe), and it was in this discussion that we really dealt with religion as well.

Sure regarding life's origins this should be said:

"We do not know how life started, there are many hypothesis ranging from panspermia to creationism; however these hypothesis are so far completely untestable, so cannot fall under the umbrella of scientific knowledge. How life came to be has absolutely zero to do with our studies of evolution, so lets move on to the next chapter in our books and start taking an in depth look at evolution and the processes by which it works. Evolution has withstood 150 years of predictions and testing and has been subject to intense scrutiny via the scientific method and as such falls firmly into the realm of scientific knowledge"
 
So do most people here. Big stores and companies say happy holidays just to be more inclusive (which shouldn't be viewed in such a negative light as it usually is) but most people say merry Christmas. Hell, I say it and I'm an atheist. I've also never heard anyone actually get annoyed by telling them merry christmas. All of that crap is manufactured outrage.

Yes, it is manufactured by a very small, very shrill minority who should be ignored.
 
Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, you know. Had you taken my high school Biology class, you would know that ... :)

That is to say, you can believe in God and also believe in Evolution.

As said, we did learn about Evolution and much of the supporting evidence, and obviously that it is the theory that is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community. But we did not skip over the "origin of life" component. We learned some of the then-current secular theories (which have since been disproved, I believe), and it was in this discussion that we really dealt with religion as well.

I never said they were mutually exclusive, I have argued that same point many times myself. This still does not make creation or religion able to fit under the guise of science.
 
Right, it's tradition, and that is valuable.

So do most people here. Big stores and companies say happy holidays just to be more inclusive (which shouldn't be viewed in such a negative light as it usually is) but most people say merry Christmas. Hell, I say it and I'm an atheist. I've also never heard anyone actually get annoyed by telling them merry christmas. All of that crap is manufactured outrage.
 
Creationism is not based on science, so it doesn't belong in a science class.

creationism should only be mentioned in a church because it's a completely faith-based concept. there has never been any proof of creationism in the entire history of humanity.
 
You have one brain, not six or seven. Why are you trying to compartmentalize a child's studies so much? Disciplines do overlap, and this is an example of that. Holistic learning is a positive, not a negative.

If your concern is that the focus on science might be diminished, that's more understandable, but I think (I could be wrong) that studies have shown that interdisciplinary overlap is very good for education in general.

I never said they were mutually exclusive, I have argued that same point many times myself. This still does not make creation or religion able to fit under the guise of science.
 
American moral absolutism at its finest... :)

creationism should only be mentioned in a church because it's a completely faith-based concept. there has never been any proof of creationism in the entire history of humanity.
 
If people want to run their schools this way, that's fine. It sounds fair, although I don't really agree. Now I do live in the United States, though, which is why I'm expressing my views on it.

Because, strictly speaking, those aren't topics covered by the science of biology. Which is what the American classes solely teach. Evolution is part of the science of biology, so it is part of the curriculum.

I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers haha. If I was afraid of that I certainly wouldn't support the extensive learning of other religions in one class dedicated to that topic. That seems much more in-depth and informative than mixing it in with all of the curriculum of a biology class. Of course, you may not have been targeting me specifically, but if that was the case for other posters here as well then why have they also posted that they support the learning of other religions, just not in a biology class? There will always be those kinds of people, though, but what I'm saying is that isn't the reason why Americans don't teach religion in biology class.

And there is nothing wrong with opening discussions. But would you talk about war and history in a mathematics class? Seems a little bit silly, doesn't it? I mean, if you're going to talk about history and war instead of calculus, why bother having a calculus class? There's just a time and place for everything, and apparently Americans feel that religion should not be talked about in biology because it isn't a traditional science. Open a whole class dedicated to it, in addition to what every student learns in his/her history classes, and you'll end up with some very educated students on world religions. And biology :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom