Creationism in schools, yes or no?

We lose the constitutional questions and public policy questions, and are merely left with whether it is the duty of the private schools to provide for a broad variety of viewpoints, or should the parents supplement such lapses in the education that they direct via selection with their own dollars. I know that I read up a little bit on creationism to fill in the hole public school could not fill, with my eldest two. they weren't terribly interested. . I did not want them to hear nothing about creationism when they might meet some people who were fervent believers. None of this is about ethics.

 

I have no problem with a broad range of creation myths being taught in schools.

Obviously, that does not belong in a science class.

 

What about IF.... ... there is a new branch of science based on.....
the idea that Astronomy....... Micro-biology..... Theoretical Physics......
Medicine...... Evolutionary Theory.....all actually may perhaps have a common denominator......... or several common denominators????

..... Could ....... the key to ridding the earth of cancer... could it perhaps be there in Wave Theory?????

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Book4/Html/Tejmanphysics2.htm

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/cancer/treat1.htm

 

Religion is not science

 

Despite my personal feelings, no discussion on religion of any kind in any K-12 classroom. After that, it's elective to go on to college, so no problem.

 

Disagree. Put it in comparative religions in liberal arts. Make it an elective. We can't let atheists any more than theists telling us what can and can't be taught.

 

Again, despite my personal feelings, I disagree when it comes to public education. Private education? I have no problem with that.

The argument over the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding separation is sufficient for me to believe public schools shouldn't touch such a potentially controversial subject.

Faith is subjective, so it's not an appropriate subject for a K-12 public school environment. Too much room for abuse.

 

As there isn't a NO option.....

NO!

Creationism is pretty much Lying to Kids.

 

Nope. Abiogenesis should also be removed since that is a bogus theory as well at this point. Just the facts and only the facts.

 

I voted "
I am not sure.... but our kids are a mess so we have to consider this!". I made this choice because what I know differs greatly from everything that is represented in the OP.

 

The Founders (who really don't count in this discussion) would have agreed with outright religious instruction in public schools, ocean515.

And the courts permit religion classes in a non-proselytizing classroom.

 

Define non-proselytizing....

That is the reason I have come to the conclusion I have.

One person's non-proselytizing is another's endorsing. It's a powder keg in this age of Culture Wars.

 

define "be taught"

 

I agree with you generally on your concern, but I think the merits outweigh the defects.

 

Then something other than your feelings informs your opinion. Surely you don't imagine that something is the Constitution.

 

I'd be fine with not teaching creationsism as long as the problems, or 'yet unproven' dynamics associated with evolution (such as abiogenesis, for example) are touched on. Teaching kids 'heres what we know' is great, but we need to be teaching them 'heres what we don't know' (and what you might want to help us learn) as well.

Creationism is not mutually exclusive with evolution, and whatever spiritual organization students affiliate themselves with should be responsible for teaching them that, not the school. However, neither is it the schools business to be teaching that creationism IS mutually exclusive to evolution, as many teachers take it upon themselves to emphasize. That is also not the schools responsibility.

 

Religion is part of the making of African, Europen, and Native Indian cultures, thus it is essential to understand American culture, society, and history.

 

Avoid any preachiness and stick to the facts regardless of whether you're teaching about creationism as a hypothesis or evolution as a scientific theory. I mean, this should be true of anything and everything taught in school. Teachers aren't there to indoctrinate and brainwash.

 

Abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution....NOTHING!

Creationism as stated in the Bible(s) is simply impossible if you also with to teach biology, geology, history, planetary dynamics....etc....it also leads down several false paths that would interfere with education and knowledge. Creation must be left to Religious schools and never be taught outside of it.

 

Abiogenesis is relevent to evolution. The question 'where did we come from?' logically extends to 'where did life come from?' That question (and the lack of convincing evidence in the proposed answers) leaves plenty of room for creation scenarios, followed by evolution as a description of the progression of that created life to its modern manifestation.

And NOT literal, biblical creation scenarios. The creation story as posed in the OT of the Bible is generally accepted as metaphorical/allegorical; a description of a process from the spiritual perspective. A totally literal interpretation of The Bible is accepted by very few within Christianity.

Adam and Eve =\= All Creationisms. That is but one of many.

 

Abiogenesis deals with how life began and Evolution deals with what happened afterward. The two do not tackle the same issue. Creation requires an instant man scenario whereas Evolution requires the opposite.

 

Creationism is more of a (religious) philosophy than a science. As such, it should be taught in the course of social studies as a contemporary (therefore relevant) phenomenon, as is snake-handling or tribal genital mutilation. Or maybe in the course of studies of failed sciences such as phrenology.

 

Or failed attempts, always, to disprove the existence of deity.

 

Since Galileo and Darwin science succeded in evacuating god out of the places people thought it hid. As one can't prove a negative, that's the closest thing there is.

 

No one actually tries to "Disprove" a deity, but the books people write about it are easy to disprove. That is what you complain of and never bother to "Prove" as truth.