Creationists: Would you accept a compromise and allow Creationism to be taught ...?

Question

in U.S. public schools in a special course that would cover the creation stories of all major religions?

for the record, I think Creationism is hogwash as science. I am just thinking this may be the way to placate these people.

Answer 1

In a world religions class but not science. I also wouldn't want flat earth taught as an alternative or the Hindu belief of the sun orbiting the earth. Why would we tech mythology as science. It makes no sense to me.

Answer 2

Sure, right after mythology and before astrology. Evolution is a on going process that is still in work---- survival of the fittest; the ability to adapt to ones changing environment. Not the strongest, the largest, and the fastest. We adapt---. The Theory Of Evolution is based on scientific facts that are brought together, this theory is ever changing because it allows for new data. Creationism doesn't allow for continued study, no new data, and was past down as fable stories. Do i go with that some Aboriginal Americans tribes claim that we were made of mud and put into a kiln--some were over cooked, some under cooked, and some just right. Evolution is not based on color, religion, or stories past down. Evolution allows for a religious beginning to this world. A common scientific fact "The cause has to be greater than the effect"--So something has to be greater than the universe in order for the universe to exist. From there is Atlas holding up the world --and Eve the apple. Religion is not a basis for science on how we created---but why were created in hope for making us feel empowered and live a just life that will encourage a continuation of our kind "common rules of civilization ". No religion ever looks to prove itself wrong in it's beliefs----science is always looking for to disprove and reprove it's theories. Creationism is foke lor--and be treated as such. Otherwise I would have to answer that i was created by a mud bowl that Eve stored her apples in, and later turned in to a pie that was under cooked---- who's Idea of Creationism do we accept as the right anwer --when all are different, prejidital to others, and none based in fact.--- So No, we don't teach Religion in school until we all agree that there is only one true religion, and everyone openly believes in only that one, No Creationism

Answer 3

"for the record, I think Creationism is hogwash as science. I am just thinking this may be the way to placate these people."

Why should we placate them? You're right, Creationism is hogwash as science. So why should we teach it at all in the public schools??

Answer 4

Absolutely. I believe that Special Creation can be taught without reference to the Bible. I also know that the evidence will speak for itself. You see, I'm unafraid of other beliefs about origins; unless they are unsupportable by the evidence and taught dogmatically as fact without evidence in support and/or it is the only hypothesis that is permitted to be taught. This is known as brainwashing, not education. Special Creation used to be tought in the public schools. Now only the hypothesis of evolution is permitted to be taught. We make a grave error and underestimate our children if we think they are not capable of making their own decisions after examining all of the available evidence.
PS: Prometheau -sorry if I misspelled it. In a way I agree with you. Sadly too many churches have turned away from teachin creation from the pulpit and teach evolution -or derivatives thereof- instead. I am quite confident that if all beliefs about origins are taught that people are intelligent enough to make the right decision based solely on the evidence. I have no problem with my church teaching Special Creation and evolution side by side because I'm confident that the evidence supports Special Creation and the flood of Genesis, not evolution. I believe if the churches did tis there would be a revival.

Answer 5

Of course they would! Because they think this is the first step to getting "there views" into the minds of young people. I have no problem with this because it is a perfect platform for science to use ideas such as creationism - which have no factual foundation - to there full advantage. Let young minds understand what facts, science, objectivity vs. the impossibility of total objectivity go to work. Any young mind with a vested interest in facts will come to vast and great conclusions that nether side may have ever thought of. It is no problem use it as philosophical argument because there is nothing scientific about it. Use it as a philosophical argument because there is nothing substantial in it. It will serve a purpose to train young minds in critical thinking, young people are not stupid, they will come to correct - well thought of conclusions. 90% of surgeons do not disregard the germ theory of disease. 100% of creations disregard the "theory of evolution?" Which would you prefer to operate on you? The answer is clear. Give them there chance to teach there religion in school. But give the rest of the rational industrialized world the chance to teach religion, philosophy, and evolutionary biology. When one of their family members is fading of cancer they will want the doctor grounded in reality. Trust me. It will be okay.

Answer 6

Yes the idea that Man evolved from a distant ancestor shared with apes is a theory.....
Evolution is not a theory! We can watch some organisms evolve in our lifetime. Viruses and bacteria for example.... Why do you think there is a different flu shot every year.... it's a new strain!

The problem I have with creationism is evidence. There is no imperical evidence. I have spoken with many very well educated men of faith, they ALL admit it comes down to faith. If you look at the bible unemotionally and devoid of faith NOBODY could believe it to be true. (And yes every Priest, minister, and bishop I've spoken with agree's) It takes Faith... which is fine, faith is good, I wish I were capable of it! But don't teach it in school if it's all faith based.

Answer 7

That is actually a great idea! I think that class is called "World Religions." Many schools have something like that, but not until the higher grades. I think it should definitely be introduced at a younger age. People are never too young to learn what other's believe.

Answer 8

The pastime in practise creationism at an early age is depending on the more suitable possibilities of implanting the concepts of religion by impressive even as the iron is warm. youthful minds are a lot less able to refuting illogical reasoning and are liable to accepting that imaginary and mystical "reasoning" is real and for this reason worth of help. the school room as a messenger also contains alongside with it a level of credibility that could't be got here upon outdoors of a getting to understand company. in case you study that introduction technology is "real" interior a similar room the position you're taught that a million+a million=2, you a a lot less apt to ask questions concerning the "info" of introduction on your later years. introduction technology isn't technology... wise layout isn't wise... [][][] r u randy [][][]

Answer 9

I probably would not...I have to think about that??? Maybe if it was taught as a combined class with evol/Creat sides both looked at? And let the person decide for themselves?? Not real sure pretty good question!

Answer 10

it is fine to cover all major religions in a social studies class, in a junior or higher year. although in reality things life this should only be taught in college...families have their own beliefs, and it should not be up to the schooled to go and destruct everything they have been trying to teach their children.