Do you think it is ethical to teach creationism in school?

Answer 1

The objective of the search for truth begins by answering questions, that lead to new questions, etc. Some would call this flawed, but in reality we are meant to search. In intelligent design (the new name for creationism), you begin with the thought that the answers are preordained, then you submit your findings to fit what is written. Sorry, but Creationism or ID has no place in a Science class. You can not measure advances in Creation. Religion or Philosophy classes perhaps, but not Science.

Answer 2

Yes. But not in a science classroom.

A kid who learns that "because it says so in Genesis" is a valid scientific explanation, will be useless as a scientist. And as a layman this kid will forever be unable to understand what the scientific method means, and will always look at science with suspicion and hostility. Not a ticket to a good education.

That said, I see no problem with a religious school teaching creationism as an alternative way of understanding our purpose and place in the planet. As long as this is not taught in *opposition* to the scientific approach ... i.e. it is a good thing to help older kids understand that there can be parallel ways of viewing the same questions and that *both* can be true.

Many fundamentalist Christians are incapable of accepting both paths to truth as compatible. They should learn something from the Catholic position on evolution as taught in Catholic parochial schools, which does reconcile the two. (See source.)

BTW, I agree that "to present evolution as undisputed fact is unethical." It should not be taught that way. Evolution is the currently reigning theory of biology, just as the atomic theory is the reigning theory of chemistry, or plate tectonics is the reigning theory of geology, or the Big Bang is the reigning theory of cosmology, or the germ theory is the reigning theory of medicine. Any of these can be toppled, but kids need to learn what the current paradigm is.

Intelligent Design also has no place in a grade school or high school *science* classroom. Even if it was a science (which it is not, by any definition of 'science'), it is *extremely* premature and half-baked, with a small group of adherents and almost no body of published papers. The place to develop a new theory or debate rival scientific theories is at the PhD. level in the universities and science journals ... you *don't* settle contentious scientific debates in 7th grade biology classrooms!

Answer 3

I think it's unethical not to. Evolutionism is a theory, and a very flawed one at that. However, I'd be more comfortable with something classified more as "intelligent design" than creationism. You can teach "intelligent design" without saying "the Bible says..." Basically, ID says that the evidence seems to indicate that the world was intentionally designed to work the way it does and could not have arisen by any formula of chance + time.

To present evolution as undisputed fact is unethical.

Both need to be taught in the science classroom because both intelligent design and evolution deal with evaluating scientific evidence and the discipline of science itself. Both also deal with major questions of philosophy and worldview and both should probably be dealt with in a philosophy classroom as well.

Answer 4

If the school is teaching evolution, not as a theory, but as a fact, then yes, they should teach creationism. You cannot teach one side of the debate, you need to offer both. Let the students make their own conclusions.

Answer 5

I think it's unethical to preach in the public classroom. However, bringing in differing points of view, different thoughts, different religions and teach about them is necessary. Of course it's ethical! It should even be made mandatory. If children aren't aware of other thoughts/ideas, how can they be truly educated? To be afraid to teach something because some might not believe it or be offended is to teach nothing!

Answer 6

How do you NOT equate intelligent design with creationism? Are they not the same thing? It would be unethical for them to be taught in school.

And I love it when people still think, in this day and age, that evolution is a flawed theory!! To all you people in this category, I think we should take away your game cubes, cell phones, pda's, pc's, electric to your house, etc...because all of those things were also formulated according to scientific theory...and clearly you don't believe in science...so you shouldn't benefit from it!

No, it is unethical to teach the law of God in the classroom. That belongs under the classification of "religion", and that would violate separating church and state to mix them.

Answer 7

Sure it is ethical for a teacher to present students with all the various theories in an unbiased manner. When the teacher becomes unbiased~then I would say it becomes unethical. As teachers, we are suppose to present theories as theories~thus, encourage individual thinking~not my thinking.

Answer 8

Just as ethical as passing off a "theory" as proven science....

Read Ann Coulter's "Godless"

Answer 9

sure, as long as its taught as a possibility, not an absolute truth (and im someone who believes it is an absolute truth). for that matter, it doesnt seem especially ethical that evolution is taught as an absolute truth, which it so often is. you cant prove evolution, so bio teachers really ought to stop pretending

Answer 10

Absolutely not.