So if we were to teach "intelligent design" or "creationism" or whatever they're calling it nowadays...

Question

in school, shouldn't we teach the creation theories of ALL religions in school? Honestly though, I'm truly interested in the rationale behind insisting evolution is not taught and that creationism is...assuming public schools are intended to be institutions of secular learning. So for all you smart alecky atheists out there (I mean that as a good thing) ... why don't you all make believe you are Christians for the moment and actually try to come up with an explanation? It could be fun! And all you Christians, seriously, I wanna know. I'm fascinated.

Lori K: I wasn't aware that ID wasn't tied to a specific religion. Thanks.

I've seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff. It's interesting that they so definitely tied global warming to reduction in pirate populations! =)

Answer 1

Evolution is a theory. Hence its name - the THEORY of evolution.

The bible is FACT. Millions of people can't be wrong. It is the best selling book of all time. It is God's word - I know this because (1)the bible says so (2) God told me so.

The bible teaches us the one and only way to God. Open your bible and read, and you will discover the truth. Beware of false prophets - they are Satan in disguise.

There is actually proof of creation!

Answer 2

Proponents of intelligent design usually don't propose that creationism be taught in *favor* of evolution, but in conjunction, as an alternative theory. Since there are a few (okay, very few) scientists who support some form of intelligent design (like the guy who wrote Darwin's Black Box) I guess you could argue that this gives it more legitimacy as a scientific theory vs regular theology. As far as teaching other religions, I think the difference with intelligent design is that it does not presuppose a specific god as creator, but only states that certain processes and biological structures in nature are too complex to have arisen purely from chance mutations. In this way, it doesn't really exclude any religions. Personally, I think intelligent design neutralizes its language in this way in order to give it the illusion of scientific merit. It's the classic narrow edge of the wedge in terms of trying to sneak god back into the classroom, and I hope it never gains any real traction. There are other theories that I do remember being brought up in science class... the Strong Anthropic Principle, for example, which was proposed by an astrophysicist and shares certain similarities with creationism. It is science, I suppose, since it's based on mathematical probabilities.

Answer 3

Speaking as an atheistic evolutionary biologist, I would welcome the chance to bring a debate about creationism/intelligent design vs evolution into the classroom.

At least then, there would be the chance to actually teach evolution!

The non-scientific, non-testable creationist/ID section could be demolished in about ten minutes, and then some actual discussion about evolution and what a scientific theory is or isn't could be taught.

As it is now, many school boards cravenly avoid the controversy by completely leaving any mention of evolution out of the curriculum entirely, are at best putting it into the upper levels of high school biology (which the people who need it most are unlikely to take).

So bring it on! We can talk about Mud Woman, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Raelian aliens at the same time! As long as we actually talk about it!!

Answer 4

The trouble is, how can anyone teach ALL theories of the origins and development of life? Think about it, how many theories are there? 2? 20? 2,000? I can make up a handfull of theories right now and none of them will have any merit whatsoever. How will anyone decide which of the theories to teach? Which ones can be said to have merit and which ones are garbage? As it stands, evolution is the only theory that can be backed by scientific reasoning and logical thought.

Answer 5

Yes. If one crackpot pseudo-scientific theory gets in, why not all of them? Intelligent Design isn't even scientific as was demonstrated in the recent court case of Kitzmiller v. Dover: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science and yet..... it's still jammed into the science classes of children because the religious types are flustered that reality clashes with their religious notions of "origins".

But ok... I'll pretend to be a Christian... ahem...

"Intelligent Design isn't about RELIGION! It's about, well, a cosmically powerful superbeing who created all of existence, somehow engineered the natural laws of the universe, crafted human beings and all other life on this planet, and we think this life and this existence is soooo perfect that it MUST indicate a creator like this. And we're NOT saying it's God, though... I can totally understand why it might sound a LOT like him.....

ANYWAY, this is TOTALLY scientific. I mean, it sounds just so logical. It sounds so good! What do you MEAN, it has to be testable? Test it by looking up into the darned sky, why don't ya? Look, there's the sun. Isn't the sun evidence enough? Now look at my eye. It's really really complex! OBVIOUSLY complexity denotes design. The sun exists, my eye exists, therefore my theory is completely scientific.

What do you MEAN, a cosmically powerful superbeing would be pretty darned complex? So what? The creator gets to be the exception. Why? Because... well....... there's got to be an exception and OBVIOUSLY it's the designer. Why? Because.... it...... makes sense that way! Stop persecuting me!!!"

Answer 6

This is actually one of the reasons the latest US case was ruled against the "teach creation in public schools" advocates; i.e. that the schools would have to teach every different creation story. But this was just a minor point. The court's major point was that creationsim is based on religion and not science, and it's advocates were aware of this but were being dishonest by trying to misrepresent it as science. The court gave them a real tongue-lashing.

Even if I were christian/theist, there is simply no way that I could sign on to nonsensical teaching in our schools for the very essence of biology. Honestly. Agreeing to teach every version of creation is not the right direction either - although it does demonstrate the absurdity of teaching religion in public schools. Rather, as a christian, I would be doing everything I could to help other christians to learn about the FACT of evolution (it really happened/happens). This is not open to debate in any rational way. Providing misinformation to children about something as important as biology (which saves countless lives, prevents disease, etc) is hardly a christian act. It can only be harmful.

As a christian, I would try to help my fellow christians to appreciate that our religion is far from perfect, and that we can make it better. It must adapt for new knowledge that constantly becomes available to us through science. For example, god is not some kind of trickster, who would bother to create fossils of animals that never existed.

I would try to teach them about the origins of our religion, to appreciate that the bible was written, edited, and translated by imperfect humans (perhaps influenced by god). I would try to teach them that being a christian does not mean that you no longer think or learn. I would try to teach them how to learn: consider alternatives, ask for supporting arguments/evidence, and challenge authority.

In short, if I was a christian, I would do all that I could to help strengthen the concept of christianity, by addressing its many weaknesses. I'm sincere about this - I really think that christians can be rational and reasonable, along with their faith. For example, catholics, despite their many crazy rules and beliefs, do acknowledge that biological evolution is a fact. If the catholics can make that leap, then certainly all the other christian sects can do so as well.

Answer 7

I will be good and pretend to be a Christian and argue your question to the best of my ability.

Jesus Christ our Lord came to Earth and suffered for the sins of mankind. He died for us and he told us that our Father loves us despite all the wanton suffering he inflicts upon us and to obey the Bible or incur more wanton suffering.

The Bible tells us the whole of human history from the point of Creation, including the creation of the World and of the first man. It's obvious that the world was created because it is so intricate and clever and beautiful. It's obvious that evolution couldn't have created the eye because, er, it's like obvious.

Of course we shouldn't teach other religions' creation theories because they are JUST THEORIES, just like evolution is a theory. We KNOW Yahweh did it (sorry, YHWH since Hebrew has no vowels), because the Bible says so and Jesus came 2000 years ago and died for our sins.

Oh hang on, didn't my circular argument start there?

Answer 8

I'm Christian... though I believe in evolution. I believe that God created not just Earth, but the universe (the Big Bang was caused by God) and he left the planets to evolve on their own. But public schools should teach evolution because it can actually be proven, unlike creationism. If you want to learn that, go to church.

Answer 9

They should teach all theories, yes, but then you get more into a religious studies class than a science class. The question is simple enough to constitute two theories:

1. Evolution

2. Created Universe

Does it matter who created the universe? It does to adherents of religions. But it doesnt matter to evolutionists, majority of them believing that there is no God.

Answer 10

"is verbal replace, fairly with the different gender", growing to be strictly prohibited to ... forming sexual relationships?" great question! i imagine this is consistently perceived that way. i imagine human beings nevertheless have a tricky time searching at relationships between genders as something yet previous, present, or potential sexual partnerships (also an obvious improve contained in the jealousy interior of genders, with adult men being suspicious of girls human beings's relationships with one yet another and vice versa, yet it truly is yet another challenge). it truly is achievable to form deep and extreme emotions for human beings of the different sex without there being something actual--yet it truly is uncommon. i'm suspicious of a guy who has a good number of lady friends merely as i'm a lady who has a good number of male friends. yet it truly is contained in the real global. In a cyber-context, all of us is courageous--it truly is why they prefer being there. they could search for suggestion from with a lady about issues without plenty invested. they're jealous of her time, not of her. you're saying they're socially awkward. i'm particular she serves a objective, and they could change into aggravated even as somebody else's issues were taking priority over their own. i do not understand why "many women human beings" take kindness as sport"--perhaps they don't understand any diverse. or possibly they're complete and complete narcissists who have self assurance that everbody needs them. Very interesting topic.

Answer 11

That's exactly how the Flying Spaghetti Monster came into being. As a refutation of ID!