Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

[Peter Grimm]

Self-proclaimed, anyway.

yes it is, thanks. it's good to be king.

 

[Ikari]

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??

There is, IMO, overreaction to religion in public schools. While it is important to ensure that kids are not pressured into prayer or that it's not led in some official function, we've gone to a level where we begin to believe that it shouldn't even be mentioned in the least in public schools. That being said, creationist theories do not belong in the science classroom. Creationism is a theory of theology, not a theory of science. Though overall theology is a perfectly acceptable academic subject as well. It's had too large an impact on human society and moral development to just sweep under the rug. I do think we could have academic study of theology and in that course can bring up creationism.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Like I said before to another poster, you don't really need to get in to specific religions in Biology class, only in general that the origin of life is unknown, and that some people believe in creation while others believe in random chance.

There's not enough time in science class to cover every different mythology about Creation. Imho.

 

[marduc]

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.

Our advances are predicated upon science and adherence to the scientific method. This is the foundation of science, and the foundation which has brought us all of the advances we rely on in our modern soceity. Science -especially on an introductory level- needs to teach the scientific method and the utility of it. If we start inserting things which cannot be evaluated under the scientific method into our science education we are dulling an incredibly important tool that is in the tool chest of human progress.

Introducing things that are not scientific into a science classroom is not holisitic, it is basically putting a big glob of grape jelly on top of a steak. It is insulting to the steak and to your taste buds. Same thing with non scientific study in the science classroom it is insulting to science and its many accomplishments and its immense strength and utility as well as insulting to the minds of our youth.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Like I said before to another poster, you don't really need to get in to specific religions in Biology class, only in general that the origin of life is unknown, and that some people believe in creation while others believe in random chance.

Should they also mention that some people think the Earth is flat? Should they also mention that some people think human behavior is governed by invisible alien beings who're aeons old?

Or should these things go under different categories than science?
Imho, science class should be about science. ymmv

 

[Ikari]

Like I said before to another poster, you don't really need to get in to specific religions in Biology class, only in general that the origin of life is unknown, and that some people believe in creation while others believe in random chance.

Evolution, BTW, is NOT a theory on the origin of life. It is a theory used to describe the diversity of life we currently observe.

 

[Peter Grimm]

I agree with you 100% about the scientific method and its importance... but this is another example (and I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm ragging on Americans, I really do love America) of the way you guys have a tendency to turn complex issues into "black and white" terms, and cry "the sky is falling" when in fact it isn't.

I'll explain.

Has Europe not contributed to scientific understanding in the past 100 years? Well, we teach religion in the Biology classroom.

Were no scientific discoveries made in the days before the courts removed religion from the schools?

No way. And that seems like a lot of empirical evidence to me that mentioning religion in the science classroom doesn't harm the foundation of science in any way.

So you see, the sky is not falling if you mention God. Just relax.

BTW... I like your signature line

Our advances are predicated upon science and adherence to the scientific method. This is the foundation of science, and the foundation which has brought us all of the advances we rely on in our modern soceity. Science -especially on an introductory level- needs to teach the scientific method and the utility of it. If we start inserting things which cannot be evaluated under the scientific method into our science education we are dulling an incredibly important tool that is in the tool chest of human progress.

Introducing things that are not scientific into a science classroom is not holisitic, it is basically putting a big glob of grape jelly on top of a steak. It is insulting to the steak and to your taste buds. Same thing with non scientific study in the science classroom it is insulting to science and its many accomplishments and its immense strength and utility as well as insulting to the minds of our youth.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Of course I understand that.

Evolution, BTW, is NOT a theory on the origin of life. It is a theory used to describe the diversity of life we currently observe.

 

[Ikari]

Of course I understand that.

So creationism is not a competing theory of evolution, thus you do not have to mention creationism to "counter" evolution. Did you learn abiogensis?

 

[Peter Grimm]

We did give equal time to one theory (panspermia) which stated that life originated on another planet, and was somehow transported to this planet. In the 90's, when I learned this, it was considered a cooky theory... but it has since gained a little bit of traction although not completely mainstream.

There is nothing wrong with introducing competing ideas and teaching kids to think critically.

That said, use common sense. No lessons on the mighty spaghetti monster who created the world.

Should they also mention that some people think the Earth is flat? Should they also mention that some people think human behavior is governed by invisible alien beings who're aeons old?

Or should these things go under different categories than science?
Imho, science class should be about science. ymmv

 

[Ikari]

No lessons on the mighty spaghetti monster who created the world.

What if a lot of people believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[ecofarm]

We did give equal time to one theory (panspermia) which stated that life originated on another planet, and was somehow transported to this planet.

I been sayin' it a long time. They're shootin' stuff all over the place.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Yes, absolutely. We learned some of the more accepted theories of abiogensis of the day (they have since been improved on, I am sure).

So creationism is not a competing theory of evolution, thus you do not have to mention creationism to "counter" evolution. Did you learn abiogensis?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That said, use common sense. No lessons on the mighty spaghetti monster who created the world.

Using common sense says that religion goes in religion/history/sociology class and not the science class. So if we're going to start with the common sense stuff, the debate ends because we have moved creationism from the science classes.

 

[Ikari]

Yes, absolutely. We learned some of the more accepted theories of abiogensis of the day (they have since been improved on, I am sure).

There's not really any "accepted" theories as it is not something which has much evidence to it. There are some theories and limited measurements which are not complete (which is still better than creationism which has no evidence); but it's really not known. The true scientific answer to "how did live start?" is "we don't know yet".

But without using the internet, what are some of these "more accepted theories of abiogensis of the day"?

 

[Peter Grimm]

That's not common sense when the majority of the world believe in God in some form.

Using common sense says that religion goes in religion/history/sociology class and not the science class. So if we're going to start with the common sense stuff, the debate ends because we have moved creationism from the science classes.

 

[Your Star]

That's not common sense when the majority of the world believe in God in some form.

But religion isn't science.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's not common sense when the majority of the world believe in God in some form.

Are you trying to argue that most of the world has common sense?

 

[_____]

I think the debate is pretty much settled. Peter and all the other posters are not going to change their stances on this topic, that much should be clear to everybody. People have different ways of learning things and different opinions about how to go about doing it. There is no single way to learn things in a classroom. That's what should be taken away from this.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I think the debate is pretty much settled. Peter and all the other posters are not going to change their stances on this topic, that much should be clear to everybody. People have different ways of learning things and different opinions about how to go about doing it. There is no single way to learn things in a classroom. That's what should be taken away from this.

...or that advocates of Creationism are bat**** crazy

 

[Peter Grimm]

Haha I am no Biologist, I'm just recalling what we learned in my high school Biology class many years ago.

I do recall something about lightning hitting a puddle. I think that view fell out of favor later on.

But to say that no-one really knows...I agree... why then is it so wrong to have a discussion on the many viewpoints that are out there?

There's not really any "accepted" theories as it is not something which has much evidence to it. There are some theories and limited measurements which are not complete (which is still better than creationism which has no evidence); but it's really not known. The true scientific answer to "how did live start?" is "we don't know yet".

But without using the internet, what are some of these "more accepted theories of abiogensis of the day"?

 

[Peter Grimm]

That is why they call it "common."

Are you trying to argue that most of the world has common sense?

 

[_____]

...or that advocates of Creationism are bat**** crazy

Haha no, he was just exposed to a different style of teaching in Europe. Of course he's going to have some bias towards that style of teaching if he enjoyed it, just like we Americans would if things were reversed. I will admit, I personally think our style with a biology class makes more sense, but oh well.

 

[marduc]

I agree with you 100% about the scientific method and its importance... but this is another example (and I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm ragging on Americans, I really do love America) of the way you guys have a tendency to turn complex issues into "black and white" terms, and cry "the sky is falling" when in fact it isn't.

I'll explain.

Has Europe not contributed to scientific understanding in the past 100 years? Well, we teach religion in the Biology classroom.

Were no scientific discoveries made in the days before the courts removed religion from the schools?

No way. And that seems like a lot of empirical evidence to me that mentioning religion in the science classroom doesn't harm the foundation of science in any way.

So you see, the sky is not falling if you mention God. Just relax.

BTW... I like your signature line

There is a gigantic concerted effort here in the US to muddy the waters by inserting creationism onto our schools, it would be misused, misapplied, and bastardized and would lead to misinformation in our students. Creationism (or intelligent design or whatever disguise it is under) and the attempts to get it into our classrooms are being used as part of a "wedge" strategy to sow doubt regarding science and the scientific method. I can make no claim about how it is in Europe, but here it is almost certainly to be misused.

regardless even if we granted you your holistic approach, why should creation which has contributed jack **** to our understanding of biological processes get EQUAL TIME (as you stressed in the thread title) to our understanding of evolutionary theory which has contributed immensely to our understanding of biological processes and is the foundation for countless areas of advancement and development?

 

[Your Star]

There is a HUGE difference between a scientific explanation of how the universe was created, and a religious explanation. It is just as absurd to bring the religious explanation into the science environment, as it is to bring the scientific explanation into the church.