Should the concept of creation science AND the theory of evolution science be taught in public schools?

Question

I am writing a research paper on this topic and I am trying to get feedback from people around the globe. I want to know what you think and why.

Personally, I believe it is not proper to introduce one theory and not the other. Creationism alot of times is taken as just belief in the Bible and no scientific proof. Although, creation-science is backed up by a plethora of scientist indepth studies. Evolution is also a theory. I think that both should be taught or neither should be introduced.

Justin V said "Teaching one without the other is like teaching kids that they have only 2 left hands, and not right and left."
I agree with this statement.

I appreciate all your feedback! : ) Thanks!

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

Answer 1

Creationism is not backed by a plethora of scientific studies. It's backed by a plethora of non-scientific studies. Scientific studies do not rely on selectively ignoring conflicting facts in order to "prove" a theory as the creationist theory. Scientific studies do not claim non-reliability in a technique such as dating at one point, while claiming reliabilty in the same technique when it supports a theory.

Scientific studies that are not conducted with objectivity or scientific methods should not be taught. Hence, creationism should not be taught.

Using your analogy, teaching creationism would not be like teaching children they have a right and left hand, it would be like teaching children they have three hands.

But I'll say one thing, if creationism is allowed to be taught, I'll be sure that all origins of creation theories are taught, including the HOPI, Mayan, Chinese, Satanic, and Greek Mythologies that contribute to creation theory. I like the Hopi version where we all had tails and came from the center of the Earth! While I don't agree the theories are valid, I applaud your interest in fair treatment of creationism.

Answer 2

Creationism has no place in science. Why are you writing a paper if you already have a conclusion? There is a joke that for all the people who believe in creationism as a science, let them only use the health care that creationism has developed when they become ill. The point is, that to be science, you must be testable and repeatable. Creationism is neither. All of the life sciences are based on evolution, and the vast improvement and growth of these has greatly improved mankind.

I have no difficulty in anything that you want to believe, I have a difficulty in your using my money to teach it, when it does not withstand the most basic of scientific standards. If you wish to find the right, left, or upside down of God, go for it. Why would you need the support of the school system, go to church. but I pay to teach my children life sciences, including evolution, because it's theories have been testable and repeatable. How else do you get from Darwin on a ship in the south seas to DNA with over 98% matching between chimps and humans? I have no idea who Justin V is, but I do know what scientific proof is, and isn't. If all of the proof is about how evolution is wrong because of this fossil record or that bit of writing..when did that ever create a new antibiotic? and if we did allow your version of creationism to be taught at school, there are a number of other versions of Nonchristian creationsim based on other belief systems that you would open the door to be taught as well. Many mainstream churches object because they do not wish the creationist teachings of Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, or Wiccians taught to their Christian children (they also don't want the money for the poor to be spent on the courts, which, you may have notice, the creationist have not had a very good track record with). Teach your children about God as you will, last I noticed you had more then enough children from good christian homes not spending much quality time at church. BUT, just because you can't fill the pews does not mean you get to use my tax dollars and my child as a captive audience to put forward your own belief system.

Answer 3

I think it should be the student's choice. They should make religion studies an elective in all high schools, IMO. Not a 'this religion is right, this one is wrong' sort of thing, but an objective look at the different beliefs and the cultural consequences of them.

But teaching evolution-based creationism in a science classroom is, I think, a mistake. For one thing, not everyone is a Christian. For another, science in high school is meant to be evidence, evidence, evidence. The theories they teach must have evidence to back them up. Belief has no part of it. In university, there is more room for discussion now that students have been taught the basics. But in high school, I don't believe it would do anyone any favours to complicate it by adding religion to the mix.

But yeah. Creation science is fine with me - just as long as it's an elective. If you're teaching it to kids who don't want to be taught, then what's the point? They'd just forget it all after the final exam. I've seen it happen, lol.

Answer 4

I will argue that 'theory of evolution' should have precedence over 'theory of intelligent design,' and both should be (not even close to co-equal) parts of a biology curriculum, but that 'creation science' should be rejected.

Theory of evolution has explanatory power that obviates the basis of intelligent design theory, but that power does not rule out the possibility that adherents of intelligent design theory are correct, nor does that power supply any sure remedy for the incredulity that provokes the invention of an intelligent design(er). Intelligent design theory explains nothing that evolution theory does not already explain, and the importation of 'an intelligent design' creates only more problems that i.d. theoretics sweeps under the rug. Creation science explains nothing.

A man can entertain all of these ideas, but it would be cowardly to say that because 'they are all theories' they are for that of equal value. There are ways to evaluate competing theories. I happen to value 'explanatory power,' and I find theory of evolution the more powerful tool for explanation. If it doesn't supply an explanation, the other theories will also fail. I also value theories that point the way to further, practicable inquiries, and here, again, theory of evolution leads its competition; the race isn't even close.

And there's the nub of my argument: how is it wise to spend educational resource on theories that would AT BEST be redundant? It's a crap shoot, of course; theory of evolution has lots of problems, and it's virtually certain that it isn't 'a complete theory' yet. It might even be wrong--but it's doin' pretty well for a young theory. But the question is there at the top of the page, and the answer is "No; teach the strongest theory, according with the current best thought in theoretics."

Answer 5

Actually, most of the "creation science" stuff is garbage, a thinly disguised way to sneak religion into the back door. I have no problem with the idea of briefly teaching that there are religion-based explanations for creation, and that these ideas are not confined to knuckle-dragging dunderheads, as is so often the picture painted in the media, but evolution theory is a different thing altogether. Also, "theory" in this case is used in the scientific sense of the word, not the general sense. Please do not confuse the two definitions.

Answer 6

My dear, i think you are confused. You really really need do a more serious research on the subject. Creation is not backed by any plethora of scientist any where in the world.

I think is improper to teach in school a theory like creationism that, in so many thousands of years, has not produced a single clue as evidence.

Creationist don't even have a good argument that one could see as plausible, much less scientific evidence. They just want you to believe because they say they have a direct connection with God and He told them creation is the holy cow.

Any theory based on just blind faith and believe, as creationism is, in a civilized society should be kept out of any serious curriculum concerned with mankind's progress.

There's one way Creationism could be introduced in schools every where: as a very crude and primitive view of the world, one that should not be taken seriously and considered extremely dangerous.

One companion study that can't be left out this equation is the horrible obscurantism, abuses, miseries and deaths created in the middle ages by the bases for creationism: blind faith and superstition.

Answer 7

Deadleavespartofthecure, and most others said it very well. Great answers.

I understand that you feel that Creationism can be backed by science but I believe that you heard that from your pastor. I have not seen that theory being proposed as science in any scientific community.
And if you manage to get the Christian belief of creation taught in schools then you had better be prepared to present the creation beliefs of all other religions on earth, and there are a bunch.

ADDITIONAL:
You think that is science???? Sweetie, your link is a list of really bad attempts to disprove proven facts with absolute lies. If you really were open minded and bothered to research the items on that website without using other 'Calvary' crapola you'd understand why people think religious institutions are for folks who can't think for themselves. You obviously haven't looked beyond the site that backs what your pastor is telling you. There is an entire world of information out there for you to see and think about. If you choose not to, that is OK, but don't try parading it about as truth to anyone who has looked beyond their bible.

Answer 8

No. the first thing you have to understand about a scientific theory is that it is as close as science will ever come to saying "this is absolute" one experiment could prove a scientific theory worn. For example, you have the theory of Gravity, the theroy of conservation of energy.... If tomorrow, you dropped an object and it didn't fall to the ground, the theory of gravity would be disproved.

Creationism is not based on research at all. It is not scientific in the least, and thus should not be taught in a science course.

A religion or philosophy course would be the only place I would be comfortable with Intelligent design being taught.

Answer 9

I'm not going to launch into some tirade about how evolution is right dammit and you'd better accept it, but I will say that there is no reason for Creationism to be taught in public school. Public schools are temples for earthly education, whereas churches are temples for heavenly education.

All of this arguing is just driving me crazy. In my English class I was explaining that a theory in math and science is very different from one in English after someone made a statement regarding the theories she was learning in her algebra class. My friend mentioned evolution as an example and one girl went insane saying that evolution had not been proven and we were wrong, wrong, wrong. My friend and I had just been laid back and making a comment about it and she just freaked out us, which makes me wonder: Would it really kill a lot of you if God suddenly swooped down and said "Oop, guess you were wrong, evolution really is the answer"? I mean, personally, it wouldn't be the end of my life if it was proven that Creationism was right.

Answer 10

To put it quite simply, evolution should be taught in biology as the basis for changes in genetic structure and natural selection. Creation according to the Judeo-Christian Bible however, should not be taught in science because it just isn't science.

I have no problem with the Christian creation myth being taught in Religious Studies. Outside of church and home, this is the only place it should be taught. When I was at school we were asked to compare Christian, Hindu and Ancient Egyptian creation myths and note similarities.